> On May 12, 2017, at 7:31 PM, Alexey Proskuryakov <a...@webkit.org> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 12 мая 2017 г., в 16:12, Sam Weinig <wei...@apple.com 
>> <mailto:wei...@apple.com>> написал(а):
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On May 12, 2017, at 2:49 PM, Alexey Proskuryakov <a...@webkit.org 
>>> <mailto:a...@webkit.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 12 мая 2017 г., в 14:38, Sam Weinig <wei...@apple.com 
>>>> <mailto:wei...@apple.com>> написал(а):
>>>> 
>>>> I regret piling on here, as I think this thread has diverged from it’s 
>>>> original purpose, but…I understand this frustration. That said, perhaps 
>>>> this is something we can solve with some tooling. For instance, a 
>>>> run-test-in-safari (as a parallel to run-safari) script could be made 
>>>> which starts the server, and then loads the test with the right URL in 
>>>> your built Safari (or MiniBrowser, or whatever).  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> That's still not good enough, as this means that I can't point someone else 
>>> to an instance of the test on trac.webkit.org <http://trac.webkit.org/> to 
>>> reproduce an issue. There is of course be another place to point to when/if 
>>> the test gets upstreamed, but even that doesn't support stable links like 
>>> trac does.
>>> 
>>> That's not to mention that learning the name of this proposed script is no 
>>> easier than learning about run-webkit-httpd.
>>> 
>>> - Alexey
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I’m not sure what you mean by “good enough”.  Good enough for what?  What 
>> are we debating here?
> 
> I think that I explained it very clearly, but let me try again.
> 
> When there is a test failure that I need to communicate to others, I say 
> something "please open 
> <https://trac.webkit.org/export/216812/webkit/trunk/LayoutTests/fast/images/destroyed-image-load-event.html
>  
> <https://trac.webkit.org/export/216812/webkit/trunk/LayoutTests/fast/images/border.html>>
>  in Safari to reproduce". That's very easy to do, and makes it very easy for 
> others to work on the issue.
> If your test requires complex setup, like WPT does, then I may not have the 
> time to write up complicated steps to reproduce, or the person who gets the 
> bug may not have the time to follow them. Those people don't have a WebKit 
> checkout, so scripts won't help. This makes the test less effective, as 
> problems that it finds are less likely to be addressed.

If the person works on WebKit, then it seems unreasonable that they would do 
work without a checkout.

If they don’t work on WebKit, then you could run wptserve on a machine 
somewhere and link to that copy. We have several servers that exist solely to 
host test content, it doesn’t seem like a big deal to make one of them update 
regularly and relaunch wptserve to pick up test harness changes.

> 
> - Alexey
> 
> _______________________________________________
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org <mailto:webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org>
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev 
> <https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev>
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Reply via email to