On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Ojan Vafai <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On May 17, 2012, at 1:42 PM, Ojan Vafai <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Peter Kasting <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Ojan Vafai <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> 2. Make outcomes optional. If they are left out, then the test is >>>> skipped (unless the test is marked SLOW, in which case it's expected to >>>> pass). There is no SKIP modifier. >>>> >>> >>> I don't think we should do this. It seems very subtle. I'd rather be >>> explicit. >>> >>> I'm OK with the rest of your numbered proposals. >>> >> >> I disagree, but I'm fine with punting this to the list of controversial >> changes that we should discuss separately. FWIW, my main motivation here is >> that it allows us to unify the Skipped file format with the >> test_expectations.txt format. But again, we can discuss that separately. >> >> >> Adding SKIP (or whatever) to every line of skipped files is not a big >> hurdle, I think we could live with that is a transitions tep. I think the >> bigger hurdle is supporting chaining across multiple directories. >> > > That's great. I don't think anyone is opposed to adding chaining and I > think that's on Dirk short-list of todos. > > The only potentially tricky thing here is figuring out what the platform > modifiers mean for non-Chromium ports, e.g. I imagine Qt will want similar > modifiers to Chromium (mac, linux, win, debug, release, etc). But I think > the difficulty here is more in getting the python code right than agreeing > on what the correct behavior is. > > Also, currently the test_expectations.txt format requires either a bug > number or a bug(ojan) entry. Would that be OK with you too? It has proven > really good historically for keeping track of why a test was added to the > file and for keeping track of getting the tests fixed (or, more > importantly, having someone responsible for following up on it), but we > could easily restrict this requirement to the Chromium expectations file if > other ports dislike it. > Most of entries in Skipped files have a bug URL associated with them so this is probably not a problem. I can see that we probably want to omit it for WontFix or NotImplemented since there isn't really a point in filing a bug for WontFix features but we already do that so there should be no blocker. - Ryosuke
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
