On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 2:01 PM Simon Fraser <simon.fra...@apple.com> wrote: > > I'd like to land a patch to support finding test references via <link > rel="match/mismatch">: > https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=203784 > > There has been some discussion about this in the past: > https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2011-November/018470.html > > But I think the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. As that mail states: > > *Link element approach* > Pros: > > - Can reuse same ref. file for multiple tests > > Still true. > > - Can have multiple ref. files for single test > > True but no something that we support, and I haven't see any WPT use this > (our importer throws an error if it sees this) > > - Information is self-contained in the test file > > Still true > > - We may get away with test suite build step > > It certainly simplifies WPT test import. > > Currently importing some CSS suites (e.g. css-backgrounds) results in broken > -expected.html files because copying them breaks references to sub resources. > > (It turns out that we can't convert W3C ref tests to use WebKit conventions > due to the first two points.) > > We're doing this much more now, and the "multiple references" point is moot, > so I think we can import WPT tests mostly as-is. > > Cons: > > - Requires us modifying each port's DRT to support this format > > No, it just requires webkitpy hacking which I've done in the patch.
I'm not certain writing a bunch of regular expressions in webkitpy is a reliable mechanism to find expected results. Another issue I found back then was that it significantly slowed run-webkit-tests' startup time because WPT has a workflow to find all tests & their expected results upfront before any tests could run. > > - Adding link elements itself may affect tests (all W3C tests are > required to have link elements at the moment) > > I haven't seen this be an issue. Another issue is that if you were to modify a test which happens to be also used as a reference or a mismatch result (worse) for some other test, then you may not notice that without inspecting every other test in existence. > - Hard to understand relationship between files. e.g. if we want to > figure out which tests use ref.html, we must look at all test files > > This is true, but I don't really see it being a problem in practice. This definitely is an issue. It's possible WPT has improved things but we've definitely had an experience where tests were used as reference for other tests, etc... and having to think about this issue every time I touch test drove me nuts. > What I have seen is us importing CSS 2.1 tests that have foo.html and > foo-ref.html, and treating foo-ref.html as a test so generating > foo-expected.txt and foo-ref-expected.txt. That seems worse. Seems like we can treat "-ref" as a special suffix like we already do with support directory and resources directory. > So now that WPT is heavily invested in <link rel=> I think we should follow > suite. It will simplify WPT import, and reduced the number of cloned > -expected.html files significantly. I really don't want to deal with tests being used as references for other tests. I'm okay with this approach if we forbid that. - R. Niwa _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev