On Sep 8, 2011, at 7:21 PM, Alexey Proskuryakov wrote: > > 08.09.2011, в 12:25, Darin Adler написал(а): > >> I find the bindings tests quite helpful. Because the perl script is so hard >> to read, it’s the changes in bindings script test results that I look at >> when reviewing changes to the bindings scripts. The fact that the results >> are checked in helps me review patches. > > OK, then they are valuable indeed. > > However, I still feel that there is a disconnect between the desired effect > (provide a diff in a patch for review) and the implementation (tests that can > pass or fail). This also puts the burden of maintaining the results on people > who needn't care about them - for example, Oliver's patch clearly didn't need > someone look over generated code changes.
I think the argument is that it _did_ need someone -> the reviewer didn't have any "nice" way to see the difference in output that would have been visible had i included updates to the expected output. My problem with the test is that it isn't run as part of run-webkit-tests (which is what we say you must run), the test output is fairly awful, and the test script doesn't support --help, or --reset (it turns out it does have an equivalent to --reset, but why use a different argument in one tool from what we use in the main one?) --Oliver > > I'm not sure what the better solution would be though. Perhaps a bot could > provide a diff of DerivedSources for any patch that touches code generators, > but I'm not volunteering to implement one :-) > > - WBR, Alexey Proskuryakov > > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
