On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Adam Barth <aba...@webkit.org> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Tony Chang <t...@chromium.org> wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Elliot Poger <epo...@chromium.org> wrote: >>> Perhaps I should approach this from a different angle: >>> What is the recommended procedure for: >>> - generating new baseline images for a few dozen failing tests, on various >>> platforms >> >> webkit-patch rebaseline-expectations >> >>> - visually inspecting them to make sure they're not bogus >> >> Would 'webkit-patch pretty-diff' work for you? It should show the files >> being added/deleted, but it won't generate a pixel diff. > > The tricky part is that this view requires you to understand all the > fallback behavior among different ports. My sense is that this would > be easier if we had a smarter view that understood that and presented > it to the user in an understandable way. Unfortunately, no one has > built that view yet.
rebaseline-chromium-webkit-tests had some careful logging to stdout that explained what files were (or weren't) being updated and why (i.e., I claim that I had solved this problem in that script. Although it wasn't presented in the HTML, that wouldn't have been that hard to add). I think if we could get the equivalent into the new tool, and if we could separate the update and optimize steps, that would probably be good enough. I think combining update and optimize makes it *very* hard to determine the correctness of what you've done. In other words, my ideal workflow would be update --> review & approve --> optimize --> [optionally review optimze?] --> land. -- Dirk _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev