On 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.
I think it would be good if platform modifiers in the expectations file matched the platform names we use under the platform/ directory, either literally or as a suffix. So for example "mac" in the chromium expectations file could mean chromium-mac, in the qt expectations file it could mean qt-mac, in the mac expectations file it should not be used, but snowleopard would mean mac-snowleopard. > > 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. Requiring a bug seems good. I don't personally see the need for any exception to having a filed and tracked bug but perhaps folks closer to the problem know of a reason. > > I think with those three things and > https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=86796 addressed, then the formats > will be unified and the only thing to bikeshed over is the filename. :) And maybe more follow-up discussion about the syntax. Regards, Maciej
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
