[webkit-dev] new-run-webkit-tests new results.html format
aroben at apple.com
Tue May 3 13:44:48 PDT 2011
On May 3, 2011, at 4:01 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> 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
Thanks for all the work you've put into this, Ojan! Is there a link we can use to look at the latest and greatest?
> 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.
>> 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.
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev at lists.webkit.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the webkit-dev