That said, I think adding a generic TestExpectations file is a good idea; it would allow us to replace the "-disabled" convention for some tests and allow us to skip tests that were temporarily crashing or timing out everywhere (which *-expected or *-failing wouldn't help with). It should be easy enough to add.
-- Dirk On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Ryosuke Niwa <[email protected]> wrote: > It is customary to add a failing test expectation (i.e. *-expected.txt file > that contains the said failure) in such cases. > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Glenn Adams <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Just checking, but I don't see a way to add test expectations that apply >> generically (to all ports). >> >> It would be nice to have something like >> LayoutTests/platform/generic/TestExpectations to which one could add new >> tests that are known to fail everywhere (e.g., because the code that >> implements a feature that is tested by those tests is not yet committed), >> but which will (at some point in the near future) not fail (when the code >> that is to be tested is committed). >> >> At present, it seems that if one wishes to do this, then it is necessary >> to add entries to the each base port expectations (i.e., chromium, mac, win, >> etc), which is rather annoying. >> >> If there is no objection to adding such a "generic" platform expectations >> file, then I will undertake to do so. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> webkit-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev >> > > > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev > _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
