> On May 8, 2017, at 11:15 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@webkit.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Brady Eidson <beid...@apple.com
> <mailto:beid...@apple.com>> wrote:
> <x-redundant-cluster-toggle://0> <x-redundant-cluster-toggle://0>
> <x-redundant-cluster-toggle://0>On May 8, 2017, at 10:44 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <
> <x-redundant-cluster-toggle://0>rn...@webkit.org <mailto:rn...@webkit.org>>
> wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 10:17 PM, Brady Eidson <beid...@apple.com
>>> <mailto: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?
>
>>
>>> On May 8, 2017, at 10:44 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@webkit.org
>>> <mailto:rn...@webkit.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 10:17 PM, Brady Eidson <beid...@apple.com
>>> <mailto: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?
Besides other issues mentioned, testharness tends to result in more verbose
tests compared to js-test, at least for simple cases.
>
> The thing I specifically asked Youenn to ask is, whether we should
> place a test inside LayoutTests/wpt like LayoutTests/http/tests when
> we want to write a test using testharness.js which requires some sort
> of network code.
>
> Since people have had some opinions about directory structures in the past.
It seems like we need a few different directories, here are my opinions on them:
(1) Imported web platform tests that don't need a server
Currently LayoutTests/imported/w3c/web-platform-tests, which seems fine.
(2) Imported web platform tests that do need a server
Probably should be under LayoutTests/imported/w3c/ somewhere, or maybe
under http/tests/ per point (4)
(3) Custom testharness.js tests that don't need a server
Probably these should just go in their normal topic-specific directories
and should not need a special directory
(4) Custom testharness.js tests that do need a server
Can these just be a subdirectory of http/tests/? We have websocket and
ssl/tls tests in there too. Would be nice to not need a separate directory for
networking tests that to use a particular test framework.
Regards,
Maciej
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
