> Is it time to make testharness.js the recommended way of writing LayoutTests?
What are the costs and benefits of testharness.js? We usually try to make regression tests reductions of some larger problem to aid debugging and to make testing fast. But testharness.js is 95kB. That's kind of the opposite of a reduction. Geoff > > To continue moving forward, some of us are proposing to serve all tests in > LayoutTests/wpt through the WPT server [1]. > This would serve some purposes like increasing the use of WPT goodies: > file-specific headers, templated tests (*.any.js), IDLParser, server-side > scripts... > It could also ease test migration from WebKit to W3C WPT. > > Some rules can guide whether adding tests to LayoutTests/wpt or > LayoutTests/imported/w3c/web-platform-tests: > - WebKit specific tests (crash tests, tests using internals...) in > LayoutTests/wpt > - Spec conformance/interoperability tests in > LayoutTests/imported/w3c/web-platform-tests > > y > > [1]: bug 171479 <https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171479> > > > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org > https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
