> > > Besides other issues mentioned, testharness tends to result in more > verbose tests compared to js-test, at least for simple cases. >
For synchronous tests, I am not sure there is any big difference one way or the other. With asynchronous tests, it might be true, but using testharness.js/promise_test usually improves things there. I personally find it easier to not wrap code-to-be-tested into quotes. Another concern is the lack of verbose output which reduces the ability to debug failing tests. This can be partially fixed by authoring tests with that issue in mind. For instance, having a big promise_test to handle the asynchronous aspect of a test and nested test() inside it. 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. > All WPT tests are expected to run behind the WPT server. That is the way tests are authored and tested elsewhere. If we have an issue with that, it is best to bring that and fix that directly in WPT. I encountered several times small issues due to file:// based origins which makes me think defaulting to http is a safe choice. One concern is efficiency. We should study that and improve on that. Another concern is the ease of running tests for developers: drag&dropping tests into a browser instead of running a server. We can partially accommodate this by rewriting testharness.js/testharnessreport.js urls. A significant and growing amount of wpt tests will not behave as expected (other resources loaded, origins, need for specific headers, need for https...) (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) > I don't think this will work, web-platform-tests is organized in terms of features. There is no clear separation between file based compatible tests and http based tests like in WebKit. (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 > Right. The only case where it might make sense to put such tests in a specific WPT-enabled directory is if the plan is to upstream these tests at some point. Such tests could be added in imported/w3c/web-platform-tests directly but this requires coordination with resyncing tests at the moment. In a not-too-far-future, I hope such tests would directly be authored in imported/w3c/web-platform-tests. > (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. > I do not have strong feelings there, http/wpt might make sense if it is found easier to understand to everybody. I'll update the patch accordingly and will land it sometimes this week if there is no additional feedback. Thanks! y
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
