[webkit-dev] Supporting w3c ref tests and changing our convention

[Ojan Vafai]

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa at webkit.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan at chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> I don't see any need for manifest files.
>
>
> W3C's build step auto-generates them.
>

I thought you were arguing that we should use manifest files for all
reftests because having multiple ways to do things is confusing.


> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa at webkit.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Dirk Pranke <dpranke at chromium.org>wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's unclear how much of a perf impact there would be but that's
>>>> easy enough to determine - I would expect it to be minimal compared to
>>>> the time of actually rendering a page.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Since I expect w3c to end up having hundreds of thousands of tests, I
>>> see any performance implication to be a serious threat.
>>>
>>
>> There is no inherent performance problem that I can see. We just need to
>> structure things in a way that avoids performance problems.
>>
>
> But we don't need to structure them. They're organized in W3C's repo, and
> we're just going to import them in some directory; e.g. LayoutTests/w3c/.
>

I'm reluctantly OK with doing this exclusively for test suites we import
that come with a manifest file, since the maintenance cost is lower.
Although, I'd prefer if we limited the number of ways you could mark a test
as a reftest. If we're going to do this though, I think that you should not
be able to mix a manifest file and non-manifested tests in the same
directory.


> If we're adding new tests that we intend to contribute back to W3C, then
> those tests should live outside of this directory. The preferred
> approach, however, is to add tests to W3C repo first, then import them back
> to WebKit.
>

I don't think this is realistic. For example, for the new flexbox tests,
we're writing them against WebKit's code and they're changing as we go. In
addition, all the properties are webkit prefixed. We're not writing test
suites in isolation. We're writing them as we implement the feature or fix
the appropriate bugs.

I don't see what's special about reftests that we'd run them on a separate
>> bot. We might decide to shard test running across different bots in some
>> way, but sharding by test type seems unhelpful.
>>
>
> I'm not talking about ref-tests. I'm talking about tests imported from the
> W3C test suite.


Even then, I don't see any benefit to not running them as part of our main
test suite.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/attachments/20111104/41e33fcb/attachment-0001.html>