On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Robert Hogan <li...@roberthogan.net>wrote:
> On Thursday 12 April 2012 00:58:47 Ryosuke Niwa wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Ojan Vafai <o...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > I agree with the sentiment that we should be upstreaming these to the > > > W3C, but I don't see why we would require upstreaming them first > > > instead of committing them locally and then upstreaming them. > > > > How do we know whether a reference file came from W3C repository or not. > > (Maybe by the fact it's named *-expected.html?) > > Yes, that is it exactly. Presumably that's by design - as NRWT currently > won't use anything like *-ref.htm unless it's in a manifest. > > > > > Also, there are directories with reftest.list but without reference > > files for some tests. The last time I checked, you were opposed to > > having bot reftest.list and *-expected.html / *-expected-mismatch.html > > files. Have you changed your opinion on this? > > It would be good if this was allowed. It would allow us to import the > reftest.list from the CSS test suite while keeping our own reference > results in there for tests in the suite that don't have them yet. > I'm not opposed to changing this if it gives us a path forward. I still firmly believe we should not use manifest files for non-imported test suites, but we don't need to enforce that with the tooling if it makes things more complicated.
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
