[webkit-dev] generic test expectations?
glenn at skynav.com
Tue Nov 13 12:09:57 PST 2012
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Tony Chang <tony at chromium.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Dirk Pranke <dpranke at chromium.org>wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn at skynav.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Dirk Pranke <dpranke at chromium.org>
>> >> We don't currently support port-specific reftests (or at least, not
>> >> very well), and we certainly should be trying to minimize where they
>> >> occur.
>> > Hmm, I actually used port specific reftest expectation files in a recent
>> > patch  (since rolled out), and it appeared to work (as a way to
>> > effectively rebaseline those expectations). So something seems to be
>> > working.
>> >  http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/133529
>> I expect it'll sort of work, but it won't be robust; you may hit weird
>> behavior and/or bugs. We really haven't beaten on this aspect of
>> things, and I don't know yet how much we want to.
> I don't think we should support port specific ref test results. That kind
> of misses the point of using a ref test in the first place. I mean, you
> may as well check in port specific pixel results which are easier to review
> for correctness.
> It may be the case that a ref test is not appropriate for what you're
> trying to test.
In the case of line break behavior, using reftests seem better than pixel
tests, since there is less need for port-specific expectations. If I can
come up with a text based approach (perhaps using range boundary rects),
then I'll do so, but in the mean time, reftests seem a better option,
especially for defining correctness based expectations (instead of merely
regression based expectations). But we are straying from the original topic
of this thread.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the webkit-dev