[webkit-dev] Testing changes to CodeGenerator*.pm

David Levin levin at chromium.org
Thu Apr 29 12:16:45 PDT 2010

Just curious, would it be less maintenance if the test run was integrated
with run-webkit-tests?/Is the concern about having lots of different tests
harness to run to verify a change?


On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 12:11 PM, James Robinson <jamesr at google.com> wrote:

> As a concrete example, I found this test setup helpful for this patch:
> http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/58345.  A nice side effect was that it
> revealed a bug in CodeGeneratorGObject.pm and let me fix it without having
> to set up build setup for whatever it is that uses the GObject bindings.
> I agree that golden file testing is a very high-maintenance fragile test
> method, but it's better than nothing.  If this framework didn't exist then I
> would have likely made the change and relied on spot checking and our
> existing automated tests to catch any regressions which is less than ideal.
> - James
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Ojan Vafai <ojan at chromium.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Alexey Proskuryakov <ap at webkit.org>wrote:
>>> On 29.04.2010, at 11:17, Yaar Schnitman wrote:
>>>> I've been using the tool for a couple of patches in V8. It really boost
>>>> the development cycle, helps reviewers understanding what a cryptic perl
>>>> block of code actually does, and side effects are easy to find. Once you
>>>> start using it, its becoming hard to work without it. Give it a try!
>>> 'm thinking about how this tool could have helped with the CodeGenerator
>>> changes I made in the past, and it seems that it wouldn't have detected any
>>> changes, and could require me to find creative ways to test the new
>>> behavior.
>> I don't really follow the what the maintenance overhead is. How does this
>> actually cause you more than a trivial amount of extra work? Maybe a
>> specific example would help.
>> Isn't this just like having a layout test with expected results? It's a
>> small isolated test instead of testing everything. That seems like a good
>> thing.
>> More importantly, it lets you be sure that every feature of the code
>> generator has some testing. In the real IDLs, a feature might stop getting
>> used temporarily and then changes to the code generator would not be readily
>> apparent.
>> Ojan
>> P.S. Sorry for the double-post some of you got. Sent from the wrong email
>> address at first.
>> _______________________________________________
>> webkit-dev mailing list
>> webkit-dev at lists.webkit.org
>> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
> _______________________________________________
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev at lists.webkit.org
> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/attachments/20100429/cd979645/attachment.html>

More information about the webkit-dev mailing list