[webkit-dev] A simpler proposal for handling failing tests WAS: A proposal for handling "failing" layout tests and TestExpectations

[Ryosuke Niwa]

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan at chromium.org> wrote:

> Asserting a test case is 100% correct is nearly impossible for a large
> percentage of tests. The main advantage it gives us is the ability to have
> -expected mean "unsure".
>
> Lets instead only add -failing (i.e. no -passing). Leaving -expected to
> mean roughly what it does today to Chromium folk (roughly, as best we can
> tell this test is passing). -failing means it's *probably* an incorrect
> result but needs an expert to look at it to either mark it correct (i.e.
> rename it to -expected) or figure out how the root cause of the bug.
>
> This actually matches exactly what Chromium gardeners do today, except
> instead of putting a line in TestExpectations/Skipped to look at later,
> they checkin the -failing file to look at later, which has all the
> advantages Dirk listed in the other thread.
>

I'm much more comfortable with this proposal.

- Ryosuke
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/attachments/20120817/0ee1d898/attachment.html>