> On May 16, 2017, at 1:16 AM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@webkit.org> wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 11:57 PM, Anne van Kesteren <ann...@annevk.nl> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@webkit.org> wrote:
>>> Given we're talking about how these tests are ran inside WebKit,
>>> whether there is an agreement about this or not is sort of irrelevant.
>>> If a test doesn't run as expected, we can run it inside a HTTP server.
>> I was just trying to help clarify why what makes sense for WebKit,
>> might not make sense for tests designed to run on all engines. If
>> that's not desired here, I'll stop.
> Sure, I don't think we're interested in changing the way tests are ran
> elsewhere.
> It would be great if upstream web-platform-tests could use relative
> paths whenever possible or allowed annotation (e.g. we'd add such
> annotation) as to which tests could be ran locally via file URL.
> However, that's more or less a secondary concern (nice-to-have)
> whereas how web-platform-tests are imported and ran in WebKit are a
> lot more important to us due to the impact it has on our development
> process, tooling, as well as the maintenance cost.

I agree with Ryosuke. We don't want to impose on others, but these two changes 
would be convenient for WebKit's use. Perhaps somewhere in WPT space (a GitHub 
issue?) would be the appropriate venue to discuss it. I am assuming here the 
tradeoff is just the maintenance burden of keeping the relative paths up to 
date, but maybe there is some deeper reason not to do it.

 - Maciej
webkit-dev mailing list

Reply via email to