[webkit-dev] Another WPT bite

[Brady Eidson]

> On May 8, 2017, at 10:44 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa at webkit.org> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 10:17 PM, Brady Eidson <beidson at apple.com> wrote:
> 
>> But now talking about testharness.js directly, I object on the grounds of "a
>> file:// regression test is dirt easy to hack on and work with, whereas
>> anything that requires me to have an httpd running is a PITA"
> 
> I think whether we use file:// or http:// is orthogonal point to using
> testharness.js.  Many of the tests Chris and I have written using
> testharness.js are checked into regular LayoutTests/ directories, and
> they work just fine.

Yes, I misunderstood this in Youenn's original message. Good to know!
> 
>> I just object to making it the "recommended way" of writing tests.
> 
> Would you equally object to making js-test.js / js-test-pre.js the
> recommended way of writing tests?

Yes.

> If not, why?

N/A

> What we're suggesting is to give preferential treatments to
> testharness.js over js-test.js / js-test-pre.js when you were already
> planning to write a test with the latter two scripts.

"It's okay to write your test however you'd like. If you were considering using js-test, maybe you should consider using testharness instead."

Is that's what's being proposed?

The WebKit project usually doesn't spend much time worrying about highly qualified non-binding suggestions. ;)

Thanks,
 Brady