On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Darin Adler <da...@apple.com> wrote: > On Jul 1, 2011, at 1:54 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote: > >> I do not believe that -expected should be used to track "incorrect" results > > A huge percentage of our expected results are incorrect in one sense or > another. It’s a massive project to rename them all to reflect the fact that > they reflect some amount of failure rather than total success. The project > may be worthwhile. >
Really? Fascinating. Does that apply to -expected.txt files in the base directories, or just platform-specific exceptions? I wonder how it is that I've been working (admittedly, mostly on tooling) in WebKit for more that two years and this is the first I'm hearing about this. It seems like we're making our jobs much harder by doing this. Are there reasons we doing things this way apart from not having a solution along the lines of something like we've been talking about in this thread? E.g., a test's results on given port may differ from what might be correct, but the port may not want to fix this (chromium often uses WONTFIX in the test_expectations.txt for this) seems like a sensible reason, but, assuming you run the test at all, I would've prefer that to be tracked by a -failure.txt sort of solution. -- Dirk _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
