[webkit-dev] new-run-webkit-tests new results.html format

[Ojan Vafai]

The results load considerably faster now. For runs where many tests fail,
the filesize is considerably smaller than the old-run-webkit-tests
filesize. Also,
I've added in the image toggling behavior of old-run-webkit-tests and made
the aesthetics a bit closer to the old-run-webkit-test format.

Some rough file sizes if you care about the details.

old-run-webkit-tests 5 failures: 5k
old-run-webkit-tests 500 failures: 250k
new-run-webkit-tests 5 failures: 1k json + 25k htmljs
new-run-webkit-tests 500 failures: 60k json + 25k html/js

Ojan

On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Ojan Vafai <ojan at chromium.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs at apple.com> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 21, 2011, at 4:47 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs at apple.com> wrote:
>>
>> (2) Slow to load (apparently it loads a 3 meg JSON file before displaying
>>> anything?)
>>>
>>
>> Loading it locally is very fast for me. I guess I should try it on a
>> laptop though.
>>
>>
>> I'm on a laptop. On my home WiFi, it takes 5-15 seconds.
>>
>
> Yikes.
>
>> For context, we reuse the JSON file that's used for the test runtime
>> treemaps, which means we need an entry for each test. That json will will
>> get .5 meg smaller shortly. There are a number of approaches to make this
>> smaller if needed. Some options would be to generate a separate JSON file,
>> or to make the data format in the existing json file more compact.
>>
>> It seems to me that only data on unexpected failures should be needed for
>> initial display. Making the page load fast seems more important than
>> convenience of reusing an existing JSON file. I hope you will agree that
>> 5-15 second load time is not acceptable. I'm sure it would be even worse in
>> poor network conditions, where even the old-style pages can be a challenge
>> to load. I would also like to be able to look at results pages on my iPhone
>> or iPad without invoking the OOM killer.
>>
>
> This should be relatively straightforward to fix. I'll ping again in a day
> or two when it's done. I expect we should be able to get comparable, if not
> smaller size than the old style pages.
>
>> (3) I like PrettyPatch format better than wdiff format.
>>>
>>
>> This is orthogonal. new-run-webkit-tests will use whichever one is
>> available on the system. The results.html file will display whichever one
>> was used.
>>
>> What would the bots display if this is deployed?
>>
>
> I'm not 100% sure. Dirk can confirm, but I believe it will use whichever
> one is on the system. So, if the bot has pretty-patch, but not wdiff, it
> would only show the pretty-patch link. The Chromium bot I linked to has
> wdiff, but not pretty-patch, hence the wdiff links.
>
> Ojan
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/attachments/20110503/44526d1c/attachment.html>