[webkit-dev] test_expectations.txt for non-chromium ports

[Stephen White]

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs at apple.com> wrote:

>
> On Feb 13, 2012, at 3:22 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs at apple.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I do agree that distinguishing "test not applicable to this port" from
>>> "this test is temporarily failing for unknown reasons" is a good thing to
>>> do. It is unfortunate that we don't make the distinction very well right
>>> now.
>>>
>>
>> test_expectations.txt has a WONTFIX modifier for this purpose. Chromium
>> used to have two files test_expectations.txt and
>> test_expectations_wontfix.txt instead of having the modifier. I would kind
>> of like us to move back to that model because then test_expectations.txt is
>> a file that you hope to keep completely empty
>> and test_expectations_wontfix.txt is a file that your rarely touch.
>>
>>
>> It's good that there is a state for this, but WONTFIX doesn't seem like a
>> great name to me, at least for tests that are inapplicable due to missing
>> features. It implies both that the missing feature is by definition a bug,
>> and also that the decision will not be reconsidered. Granted, this may be
>> bikeshedding, but if I were, say, disabling tests for Apple's port that
>> relate to the new WebSockets protocol because we don't have it on yet, I
>> would be very reluctant to mark them WONTFIX.
>>
>> For tests that are inapplicable for reasons other than missing features,
>> it may be simply that there is more than one acceptable behavior, in which
>> case WONTFIX seems wrong as well.
>>
>
> The intention of WONTFIX is exactly that the decision likely won't need to
> be reconsidered (e.g. because the test is platform specific). For the other
> purposes (e.g. websockets), we use SKIP. I actually believe we should
> rename WONTFIX to NEVERFIX to make it even more clear.
>
>
> I don't know about other organizations, but from Apple's point of view,
> it's rare that we'd want to publicly promise that we'll never implement
> something. We'd just want to document that we haven't implemented the
> feature yet, and thus some tests are inapplicable. So NEVERFIX would be
> something we'd be even more reluctant to apply. We would not even want to
> mark the difference between "we haven't enabled this feature yet, but
> probably will very soon" and "we have no plans to ever implement the
> feature unless something changes", as that would be communicating
> information about future releases.
>
> I don't know of the intent of SKIP, but maybe it is ok for this purpose. I
> would expect it to be used for tests that are temporarily skipped due to
> bugs, based on the name, which seems different to me from "this
> functionality is not implemented in this port, rendering the test
> inapplicable".
>

How about NOTIMPL?

Stephen

>
> Regards,
> Maciej
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev at lists.webkit.org
> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/attachments/20120213/3e99151a/attachment.html>