On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Feb 13, 2012, at 3:22 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> >>> I do agree that distinguishing "test not applicable to this port" from >>> "this test is temporarily failing for unknown reasons" is a good thing to >>> do. It is unfortunate that we don't make the distinction very well right >>> now. >>> >> >> test_expectations.txt has a WONTFIX modifier for this purpose. Chromium >> used to have two files test_expectations.txt and >> test_expectations_wontfix.txt instead of having the modifier. I would kind >> of like us to move back to that model because then test_expectations.txt is >> a file that you hope to keep completely empty >> and test_expectations_wontfix.txt is a file that your rarely touch. >> >> >> It's good that there is a state for this, but WONTFIX doesn't seem like a >> great name to me, at least for tests that are inapplicable due to missing >> features. It implies both that the missing feature is by definition a bug, >> and also that the decision will not be reconsidered. Granted, this may be >> bikeshedding, but if I were, say, disabling tests for Apple's port that >> relate to the new WebSockets protocol because we don't have it on yet, I >> would be very reluctant to mark them WONTFIX. >> >> For tests that are inapplicable for reasons other than missing features, >> it may be simply that there is more than one acceptable behavior, in which >> case WONTFIX seems wrong as well. >> > > The intention of WONTFIX is exactly that the decision likely won't need to > be reconsidered (e.g. because the test is platform specific). For the other > purposes (e.g. websockets), we use SKIP. I actually believe we should > rename WONTFIX to NEVERFIX to make it even more clear. > > > I don't know about other organizations, but from Apple's point of view, > it's rare that we'd want to publicly promise that we'll never implement > something. We'd just want to document that we haven't implemented the > feature yet, and thus some tests are inapplicable. So NEVERFIX would be > something we'd be even more reluctant to apply. We would not even want to > mark the difference between "we haven't enabled this feature yet, but > probably will very soon" and "we have no plans to ever implement the > feature unless something changes", as that would be communicating > information about future releases. > > I don't know of the intent of SKIP, but maybe it is ok for this purpose. I > would expect it to be used for tests that are temporarily skipped due to > bugs, based on the name, which seems different to me from "this > functionality is not implemented in this port, rendering the test > inapplicable". > How about NOTIMPL? Stephen > > Regards, > Maciej > > > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev > >
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
