> On May 8, 2017, at 9:31 PM, youenn fablet <youe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> Discussing with some WebKittens, testharness.js is more and more used in 
> WebKit.
> Is it time to make testharness.js the recommended way of writing LayoutTests?

Setting aside the pros or cons of testharness.js itself, I disagree with the 
principle of "1 single way to write all regression tests"

In the past 11 years I've heard from multiple members of the team commenting on 
the benefits of different people writing regression tests in their own styles 
using their own techniques. We're capable of covering more edge cases when we 
don't have enforced uniformity. And I agree wholeheartedly.

But now talking about testharness.js directly, I object on the grounds of "a 
file:// regression test is dirt easy to hack on and work with, whereas anything 
that requires me to have an httpd running is a PITA"

Note: I don't intend for any of this to mean I discourage the use of 
testharness.js tests. I don't. By all means, write them.

I just object to making it the "recommended way" of writing tests.

 Brady

> 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

Reply via email to