[webkit-dev] can we stop using Skipped files?
fpizlo at apple.com
Fri Jun 8 12:23:09 PDT 2012
On Jun 8, 2012, at 12:19 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Filip Pizlo <fpizlo at apple.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 8, 2012, at 4:38 AM, Balazs Kelemen <kbalazs at webkit.org> wrote:
>>> On 06/08/2012 09:46 AM, Osztrogonac Csaba wrote:
>>>> Dirk Pranke írta:
>>>>> I believe most if not all of the ports have started using either
>>>>> TestExpectations files or a combination of TestExpectations files
>>>>> (except for the Apple Win port).
>>>>> Can we explicitly switch to the TestExpectations files at this point
>>>>> and drop support for Skipped files on the other ports (and perhaps
>>>>> disable old-run-webkit-tests for all but apple win)?
>>>> Until NRWT can't handle cascaded TestExpectations - https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65834,
>>>> Qt port can't drop supporting Skipped files. We have many tests skipped in qt-5.0, qt-5.0-wk1,
>>>> qt-5.0-wk2, wk2 Skipped lists. We can't migrate all of them to the only one TestExpectations.
>>>> And I disagree with disabling ORWT at all. Qt port still support using ORWT locally.
>>>> It is better for gardening than NRWT. NRWT regularly has problems with generating
>>>> new results for a given platform dir (qt,qt-5.0,qt-5.0-wk1,...), it doesn't support
>>>> the good --skipped=only option . If folks don't want to use it, just not use, but
>>>> disabling for everyone by fiat isn't a friendly thing.
>>> 1. These are real weaknesses of nrwt, we should fix them. If gardening is better with orwt (i doubt that is the case, but I don't do gardening regularly), we should improve nrwt, i.e. reimplement features from orwt.
>> I applaud your enthusiasm.
>>> 2. I believe basically everybody agrees that we should drop orwt, except you Ossy. Maybe I'm wrong. So, is there anybody still want to have support for orwt? If so, why?
>> I'm with Ossy on this.
>> Getting rid of ORWT would be a show stopper for me.
> Can you file bugs or give me examples of why this is true? Are there
> specific features missing, or bugs you're hitting?
Here's a really nasty one, that has been sitting untouched since November:
> You mentioned the
> architecture of the code and how easy it was for you to modify things
> - I'll follow up with you on this separately (although I'd be happy to
> discuss this on webkit-dev, just in another thread to avoid
> -- Dirk
More information about the webkit-dev