(re-sending from a correct address)

> 17 нояб. 2017 г., в 9:18, youenn fablet <youe...@gmail.com 
> <mailto:youe...@gmail.com>> написал(а):
> 
> Chris recently noticed that some heavily used files (testharness*) were 
> cacheable through Apache but not WPT.
> This is now fixed and should improve WPT performances.

This is part of <https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=178277 
<https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=178277>>, another part is that the 
server is 10x slower than Apache.

I just tested on my MacBook Pro, and WPT tests took 23% of time while being 
only 9% of the total count. Taking in mind that WebKit own tests have higher 
value due to the way we choose what to test (see below), that's not a great 
story in my opinion.

One other thing that we discussed before was the operational complexity of 
running WPT tests. We frequently need to share tests with people who don't work 
on WebKit directly, but have the need to edit and run our tests. Inability to 
drag and drop a local copy into a Safari window is a deterrent to addressing 
problems caught by the tests. I think that the response we got was that tests 
will continue to require a server to run.

Let me explain why I think that WebKit tests are often more valuable as 
regression tests than WPT tests are. We add tests as we fix bugs, so we know 
that the tests are generally for problems that have a high impact on users and 
developers - that's because someone actually discovered the problem, and 
someone prioritized it highly enough to fix. We also know that our tests cover 
code that is error prone, which is why we had bugs in the first place. Of 
course, anything can be broken, but certain things are less likely to. 
Compliance tests written for specs are also valuable, but at some point we need 
to prioritize which tests to investigate and even to run.

- Alexey

_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Reply via email to