On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Filip Pizlo <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jun 8, 2012, at 12:19 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Filip Pizlo <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Jun 8, 2012, at 4:38 AM, Balazs Kelemen <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On 06/08/2012 09:46 AM, Osztrogonac Csaba wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Dirk Pranke írta: >>>>>> I believe most if not all of the ports have started using either >>>>>> TestExpectations files or a combination of TestExpectations files >>>>>> (except for the Apple Win port). >>>>>> >>>>>> Can we explicitly switch to the TestExpectations files at this point >>>>>> and drop support for Skipped files on the other ports (and perhaps >>>>>> disable old-run-webkit-tests for all but apple win)? >>>>> >>>>> Until NRWT can't handle cascaded TestExpectations - >>>>> https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65834, >>>>> Qt port can't drop supporting Skipped files. We have many tests skipped >>>>> in qt-5.0, qt-5.0-wk1, >>>>> qt-5.0-wk2, wk2 Skipped lists. We can't migrate all of them to the only >>>>> one TestExpectations. >>>>> >>>>> And I disagree with disabling ORWT at all. Qt port still support using >>>>> ORWT locally. >>>>> It is better for gardening than NRWT. NRWT regularly has problems with >>>>> generating >>>>> new results for a given platform dir (qt,qt-5.0,qt-5.0-wk1,...), it >>>>> doesn't support >>>>> the good --skipped=only option . If folks don't want to use it, just not >>>>> use, but >>>>> disabling for everyone by fiat isn't a friendly thing. >>>> >>>> 1. These are real weaknesses of nrwt, we should fix them. If gardening is >>>> better with orwt (i doubt that is the case, but I don't do gardening >>>> regularly), we should improve nrwt, i.e. reimplement features from orwt. >>> >>> I applaud your enthusiasm. >>> >>>> 2. I believe basically everybody agrees that we should drop orwt, except >>>> you Ossy. Maybe I'm wrong. So, is there anybody still want to have support >>>> for orwt? If so, why? >>> >>> I'm with Ossy on this. >>> >>> Getting rid of ORWT would be a show stopper for me. >> >> Can you file bugs or give me examples of why this is true? Are there >> specific features missing, or bugs you're hitting? > > Here's a really nasty one, that has been sitting untouched since November: > > https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71634 >
That bug had fallen off my radar, if it was ever on it (sorry! looks like this was filed when I was working on chromium side things). I've now created a tracking bug - https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=88680 - to track all of the issues I am aware of that we should fix before deleting ORWT. I've added this, and the bug ossy mentioned about Qt platform baselines, and the cascading expectations bug. I am doing another pass over all the open bugs I've seen that are NRWT-related, and will add more, but if anyone has any others you'd like to add, please do so. There is a separate tracking bug - https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=64491 , "polish NRWT until it shines", that I would prefer to use for any non-show-stopping bugs (this should not be taken to think those bugs are not important, mind you). -- Dirk _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
