[webkit-dev] Is converting pixel tests to reftests kosher for imported libraries?

[Ojan Vafai]

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Robert Hogan <lists at roberthogan.net>wrote:

> On Thursday 12 April 2012 00:58:47 Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan at chromium.org> wrote:
> > > I agree with the sentiment that we should be upstreaming these to the
> > > W3C, but I don't see why we would require upstreaming them first
> > > instead of committing them locally and then upstreaming them.
> >
> > How do we know whether a reference file came from W3C repository or not.
> > (Maybe by the fact it's named *-expected.html?)
>
> Yes, that is it exactly. Presumably that's by design - as NRWT currently
> won't use anything like *-ref.htm unless it's in a manifest.
>
> >
> > Also, there are directories with reftest.list but without reference
> > files for some tests. The last time I checked, you were opposed to
> > having bot reftest.list and *-expected.html / *-expected-mismatch.html
> > files. Have you changed your opinion on this?
>
> It would be good if this was allowed. It would allow us to import the
> reftest.list from the CSS test suite while keeping our own reference
> results in there for tests in the suite that don't have them yet.
>

I'm not opposed to changing this if it gives us a path forward. I still
firmly believe we should not use manifest files for non-imported test
suites, but we don't need to enforce that with the tooling if it makes
things more complicated.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/attachments/20120412/575705e4/attachment.html>