[webkit-dev] No (was Re: can we stop using Skipped files?)

[Dirk Pranke]

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa at webkit.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Dirk Pranke <dpranke at chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Dirk Pranke <dpranke at chromium.org> wrote:
>> > 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)?
>> >
>> > If not, what needs to happen so that we can do that? Do we need to
>> > land more of the discussed changes to the syntax of the
>> > TestExpectations file? Anything else?
>> >
>> > It would be nice to get rid of the complexity (both in the code and in
>> > our heads) if we can.
>> >
>>
>> It is clear that we're not at the point where we can stop using
>> Skipped files yet. There appear to be at least two things that need to
>> be done, before we reach that point, let alone remove ORWT (which is
>> clearly right off the table right now).
>>
>> First, NRWT appears to still be missing some functionality, and that
>> is keeping some people on ORWT. I was not aware of this, so thanks to
>> those of you that have pointed this out. Please keep the bugs and
>> feature requests coming! I have filed bug 88680 to track such issues.
>>
>> Second, it appears that some people feel strongly that NRWT "less
>> hackable" than ORWT, and that this is a significant issue for them. I
>> was not aware of this, at least not that it was a significant issue. I
>> have filed bug 88841 to track any suggestions or improvements people
>> might have for fixing this.
>>
>> Given the above, it seems that we can't yet switch to TestExpectations
>> files, but ...
>>
>> There is another option: we could change ORWT to read the
>> TestExpectations files instead and just honor the SKIP entries
>> (ignoring the other expectations). Is that something we should
>> consider?
>
>
> That seems like a nice intermediate step so that people don't have to
> maintain both files. I would aruge, however, that we should simplify the
> syntax for SKIP entries (it should no mean block the work to make ORWT
> support TestExpectations but it's probably easier to simplify the syntax
> before ORWT supports it).
>

Haven't we already "aruge"d this? :) I thought we already agreed that
we want to change the syntax in the file (cf. bug 86796)?

-- Dirk