[webkit-dev] LayoutTests results fallback graph
abarth at webkit.org
Mon Jul 11 10:46:15 PDT 2011
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs at apple.com> wrote:
> On Jul 10, 2011, at 12:11 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 12:01 PM, James Robinson <jamesr at google.com> wrote:
>>> On Jul 10, 2011 10:53 AM, "Adam Barth" <abarth at webkit.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi webkit-dev,
>>>> In trying to understand how our LayoutTest results system works, I've
>>>> created a digram of the fallback graph among the various
>>>> platform-specific directories:
>>>> Unfortunately, the fallback graph is not a tree, as one might imagine
>>>> initially. I'd like to propose two small changes, which will
>>>> hopefully make the system more sensible globally. I'm happy to do all
>>>> the work required to make these changes:
>>>> 1) The "win" port should fall back either to "all" (the platform
>>>> independent results) or to "mac," but not to "mac-snowleopard", as it
>>>> does currently. (I slightly prefer "all", but "mac" would also be
>>>> fine with me.)
>>>> 2) The "chromium" port should fall back directly to "all" rather than
>>>> taking a detour through various Apple-maintained ports, as it does
>>>> These changes have the following virtues:
>>>> A) The resulting fallback graph will be a tree, making the fallback
>>>> graph easier to understand for both humans and automated tools.
>>>> B) The Chromium port will behave more like the other ports (e.g., GTK
>>>> and Qt), rather than being a parasite on Apple-maintained ports.
>>>> These changes might increase the number of image baselines we store in
>>>> the tree for "chromium-mac"-derived ports (because there will be fewer
>>>> redundant fallback paths), but I expect that cost to be relatively
>>>> small because essentially every port has different image baselines
>>> Could you measure this? I suspect that not falling back on the mac pixel
>>> results will mean checking in a few thousand more pngs, but that's just a
>> That seems possible:
>> abarth at quadzen:~/git/webkit/LayoutTests/platform/chromium-mac$ find .
>> -name "*.png" | wc -l
>> abarth at quadzen:~/git/webkit/LayoutTests/platform/mac$ find . -name
>> "*.png" | wc -l
>> abarth at quadzen:~/git/webkit/LayoutTests/platform/chromium-win$ find .
>> -name "*.png" | wc -l
>> abarth at quadzen:~/git/webkit/LayoutTests/platform/chromium-linux$ find
>> . -name "*.png" | wc -l
> Adding thousands more PNGs would be unfortunate, especially if a significant number of them are going to be rolled over frequently.
I wouldn't expect a significant number of them to change frequently.
> What are the concrete benefits of the fallback graph being a tree?
There are two main benefits:
1) A tree is much easier to understand than a rats nest of interwoven
fallback paths. Today, the graph is close to a tree so it's possible
for experts to understand how things work, but if we continue to add
non-transitive paths, the situation will quickly spiral out of
control. For folks who aren't experts about how the system works
today, I doubt they could correctly predict the consequence of certain
actions. One of my short-term goals is to make managing the expecte
results easier, which is why I'm interested in having the system be
understandable to non-experts.
2) Without a tree structure, it's difficult to compute the optimum
assignments of expected results to directories. With a tree
structure, it's very easy. If all the children of a node have the
same result, you can delete the result at the children and promote it
to the parent. That reasoning is false for our current fallback
graph. The correct rule for when you can promote a result instead
requires reasoning over all paths (of which, of course, there are
There will be a transition cost, but the long-term benefits will
likely outweigh the transition costs.
More information about the webkit-dev