On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Dirk Pranke <dpra...@chromium.org> wrote: > > It's unclear how much of a perf impact there would be but that's > easy enough to determine - I would expect it to be minimal compared to > the time of actually rendering a page. >
Since I expect w3c to end up having hundreds of thousands of tests, I see any performance implication to be a serious threat. That said, supporting a manifest file is clearly fairly easy to do in > NRWT, and presumably easy to add as a build step (e.g., make DRT > depend on it) and may have the added bonus of allowing us to run > various mozilla reference test suites that wouldn't be using the > links, so I'm fine with that. > In fact, we already have a patch to support it on : https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=66837 and https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71567 I think we should voice a concern w/ the W3C that their tests must > follow consistent naming styles (for maintainability); we shouldn't > view the links and the manifest step as a carte blanche to name tests > and results whatever they want. > Yes, I have. More comments on http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Testing or http://wiki.csswg.org/test will be helpful. Separately, if we are throwing around numbers in the range of >100K > for tests to run, we should consider when we actually want to run them > - i.e., what will the cycle time be if we run them on every change, > etc.? But that can be dealt with when we get there. > We need separate bots in the long term for sure. - Ryosuke
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev