On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@webkit.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Robert Hogan <li...@roberthogan.net>wrote: > >> On Thursday, 21 March 2013, Ryosuke Niwa wrote: >> >>> I used to pull results from the bots where possible but creating >>>> inconsistency between png/text results is not good. >>>> >>> >>> It is unfortunate but it's much better than losing the complete test >>> coverage. >>> >> >> If that's the case then I'm happy to land whatever garden-o-matic pulls >> in or I can sweep from the bots, even if it means that png results for Mac, >> Qt, et al. go bad as a result. >> >> I guess we will always have ports whose bots do not run pixel tests so if >> those ports are happy to live with the downsides of doing that then there >> really is no obstacle to authors owning the job of updating the baselines >> for all ports when they land a change. >> >> IMHO ports who don't run pixel tests would be better off deleting any png >> results they have in the tree. Is there a reason Mac hasn't done that? >> Don't you get lots of failures when you run pixel tests locally? >> > > Yes, but I'd argue that it's better than losing the test coverage. > > By the way, we can easily address this problem by always generating pixel > results for unexpectedly failing tests. Namely, we can force --pixel when > we're retrying tests. > I've posted a patch on https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=112898 to implement this. Once that patch is landed, you can grab pixel results from any EWS bots and bots on build.webkit.org. - R. Niwa
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
