[webkit-dev] can we stop using Skipped files?
rafael.lobo at openbossa.org
Fri Jun 8 12:24:22 PDT 2012
I'm all for getting rid of ORWT. I've observed some wrong code paths there
that are probably not even used anymore. It makes more difficult to hack on
a code which almost nobody uses and whose part of it is wrong and
NRWT is not that easy thought, but I see the unittests as an improvement.
So we can keep the same standard of the rest of webkit contributions of
writing a test to keep the behavior you're introducing.
I would like to help on removing qt dependency of ORWT.
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Dirk Pranke <dpranke at chromium.org> wrote:
> Hi Ossy,
> Thanks for your reply ...
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Osztrogonac Csaba <oszi at inf.u-szeged.hu>
> > Hi,
> > 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
> > qt-5.0, qt-5.0-wk1,
> > qt-5.0-wk2, wk2 Skipped lists. We can't migrate all of them to the only
> > TestExpectations.
> Sorry, you're right, I should have mentioned that we would need to
> support cascaded files before we can do anything. As Ojan mentioned, I
> am actively working on that.
> One thing that would be helpful would be to how each port would like
> to support using cascading files and modifiers. Assuming each of you
> is free to do as you like, you can pick from several paths, e.g. you
> could use one file, or one file per operating system, or one file per
> os plus one file per version plus maybe a webkit-2 specific file
> (roughly what most ports do today, I think), or something else?
> > And I disagree with disabling ORWT at all. Qt port still support using
> > 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
> > support
> > the good --skipped=only option .
> I am not aware of these issues ... can you explain further, or file
> bugs? In particular, I'm not sure I fully understand how all of the
> different Qt version/platform combinations work, so maybe there are
> issues there that can be improved?
> If ORWT is easier for you to use than NRWT, I would love to understand
> why, so that hopefully I can improve NRWT for you as well.
> > If folks don't want to use it, just not use, but disabling for everyone
> by fiat isn't a friendly thing.
> I'm sorry, I was under the impression that no one (apart from Apple
> Win) was using ORWT any more, and I thought we had reached feature
> parity between the two tools (or at least that NRWT supported
> everything that ORWT did, obviously ORWT doesn't support reftests or a
> bunch of other things that NRWT does).
> I'm not about to remove a tool that people are still using :). That
> said, having two tools that are both widely used and do essentially
> the same thing is unfortunate, so it would be good to converge
> where/when/if we can, I think.
> -- Dirk
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev at lists.webkit.org
Rafael Brandao @ INdT
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the webkit-dev