> On May 8, 2017, at 10:44 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@webkit.org> wrote: > > On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 10:17 PM, Brady Eidson <beid...@apple.com> wrote: > >> 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" > > I think whether we use file:// or http:// is orthogonal point to using > testharness.js. Many of the tests Chris and I have written using > testharness.js are checked into regular LayoutTests/ directories, and > they work just fine.
Yes, I misunderstood this in Youenn's original message. Good to know! > >> I just object to making it the "recommended way" of writing tests. > > Would you equally object to making js-test.js / js-test-pre.js the > recommended way of writing tests? Yes. > If not, why? N/A > What we're suggesting is to give preferential treatments to > testharness.js over js-test.js / js-test-pre.js when you were already > planning to write a test with the latter two scripts. "It's okay to write your test however you'd like. If you were considering using js-test, maybe you should consider using testharness instead." Is that's what's being proposed? The WebKit project usually doesn't spend much time worrying about highly qualified non-binding suggestions. ;) Thanks, Brady _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
