On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Ami Fischman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:fischman@chromium.org" target="_blank">fischman@chromium.org</a>></span> wrote:<div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>The reality is that this "test coverage" today shows up as flakiness and so is ignored anyway, meaning we don't actually have useful coverage here. Even when flakiness is investigated, the "fix" is to cache-bust using unique URL params, which just means we "lose" the coverage you describe for that test, anyway.</div>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>When making cache related changes I have frequently found bugs from my patches because some seemingly random test started failing and I investigated. Without the test coverage some of those bugs would probably now be in the tree.</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div> antti</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br></div><div>Brian notes in the bug that GTK & wk2 GTK+ are done.</div><div>I believe that just leaves chromium & mac. </div><div>Anyone wanting to step up to do mac, and, I guess, wk2 mac?</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div>
<br></div>
<div>-a</div></font></span></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br>