On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Ojan Vafai <[email protected]> wrote:
> Asserting a test case is 100% correct is nearly impossible for a large > percentage of tests. The main advantage it gives us is the ability to have > -expected mean "unsure". > > Lets instead only add -failing (i.e. no -passing). Leaving -expected to > mean roughly what it does today to Chromium folk (roughly, as best we can > tell this test is passing). -failing means it's *probably* an incorrect > result but needs an expert to look at it to either mark it correct (i.e. > rename it to -expected) or figure out how the root cause of the bug. > > This actually matches exactly what Chromium gardeners do today, except > instead of putting a line in TestExpectations/Skipped to look at later, > they checkin the -failing file to look at later, which has all the > advantages Dirk listed in the other thread. > I'm much more comfortable with this proposal. - Ryosuke
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
