On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Adam Barth <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jun 14, 2012, at 1:47 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:44 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.) > > > > Not to bike-shed on anything, but I think we should rename Text and > Image to > > TextOnly and ImageOnly. Every single person I know, including myself, had > > never got the distinction between IMAGE TEXT and IMAGE+TEXT without > someone > > explaining it to him/her . > > > > I think IMAGE+TEXT is not a very useful distinction from TEXT either. I > > checked for uses of TEXT that is not IMAGE+TEXT in the Chromium > > TextExpectations, and it seems that nearly all instances fall into one of > > the two following categories: > > > > 1) text-only test, so IMAGE+TEXT would not have different semantics from > > TEXT (the vast majority) > > 2) Flaky test that may actually pass, so distinguishing what happens with > > the image result is of limited utility (most of these are also text-only > > tests; only a small subset even have an image result) > > > > Thus, I think Fail and ImageOnlyFail would be more useful and > understandable > > categories than {TEXT, IMAGE, TEXT+IMAGE, TEXT IMAGE}. Fail would have > the > > semantic that a text failure is expected, and image result if any can > either > > pass or fail. > > I too would like to see us remove TEXT+IMAGE. It's really confusing > to non-experts, and it doesn't scale as we introduce new kinds of > failures (like Audio). Do we really need TEXT+IMAGE+AUDIO, > TEXT+AUDIO, and IMAGE+AUDIO? > +1 to that. Also, I can never remember whether it's IMAGE+TEXT or TEXT+IMAGE (it's IMAGE+TEXT). But I agree with Dirk that we should probably discuss about this on a separate thread. - Ryosuke
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
