On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Peter Kasting <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Elliot Poger <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Can someone please remind me why IMAGE+TEXT even exists? >> >> Wouldn't it be simpler to just mark a test as follows? >> >> - IMAGE : allow image failure; go red if there is a text failure >> - TEXT: allow text failure; go red if there is an image failure >> - IMAGE TEXT: allow text and/or image failure >> >> The distinction is that IMAGE TEXT will allow image, text, or both to > fail, thus making transitions among the three generate no events. > IMAGE+TEXT says specifically that we expect both to fail and that if one > starts passing, someone should do something. (For example, maybe someone > checks in a partial rebaseline where they miss the image expectations.) > Thanks for the explanation. That makes sense, although it seems to me that the problem of no-events-generated-by-changes-in-actual-images-while-IMAGE-failure-is-expected is about 100x worse for us. But that's not a reason to hide these particular transitions! :-) > > PK >
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
