On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Dirk Pranke <dpra...@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Dirk Pranke <dpra...@chromium.org> > wrote: > >> > >> We don't currently support port-specific reftests (or at least, not > >> very well), and we certainly should be trying to minimize where they > >> occur. > > > > > > Hmm, I actually used port specific reftest expectation files in a recent > > patch [1] (since rolled out), and it appeared to work (as a way to > > effectively rebaseline those expectations). So something seems to be > > working. > > > > [1] http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/133529 > > > > I expect it'll sort of work, but it won't be robust; you may hit weird > behavior and/or bugs. We really haven't beaten on this aspect of > things, and I don't know yet how much we want to. I don't think we should support port specific ref test results. That kind of misses the point of using a ref test in the first place. I mean, you may as well check in port specific pixel results which are easier to review for correctness. It may be the case that a ref test is not appropriate for what you're trying to test.
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev