> On May 9, 2017, at 11:10 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <m...@apple.com> wrote: > >> On May 9, 2017, at 8:11 AM, Geoffrey Garen <gga...@apple.com >> <mailto:gga...@apple.com>> wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >> OK, I think this makes sense. >> >> But I still think the very best kind of test is a flat file with 10-20 lines >> of code in it. Particularly for debugging JavaScript issues, large wrapper >> frameworks get in the way. >> >>> - Tests would be more easily upstreamable to web-platform-tests, which are >>> run by all major browser engines. This would help a lot in terms of >>> interoperability. As previously discussed, Gecko and Blink already do >>> automated export of tests to web-platform-tests. I believe we should do in >>> the same direction and contribute more tests back. >> >> I wonder why these other projects do automated export instead of >> incorporating testharness.js directly. > > I don't think that's an "also", not an "instead". My understanding is that > they do two-way sync with the web-platform-tests GitHub, so there's a process > for downloading tests and upstreaming tests authored by their team. But they > still have their own copy.
Another consideration here is "would my test be useful for other browser vendors". I don't think the answer is a unanimous "yes", so I think we should only use WPT for tests that will think are worth sharing. I'm also concerned that with 4 vendors upstreaming their WPT tests, the WPT repo will just become a morass of partially overlapping tests that takes 4x longer to run than a curated repo. Simon
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
