<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On May 8, 2017, at 9:31 PM, youenn fablet <<a href="mailto:youennf@gmail.com" class="">youennf@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Hi all,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Discussing with some WebKittens, testharness.js is more and more used in WebKit.</div><div class="">Is it time to make testharness.js the recommended way of writing LayoutTests?</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Setting aside the pros or cons of testharness.js itself, I disagree with the principle of "1 single way to write all regression tests"</div><div><br class=""></div><div>In the past 11 years I've heard from multiple members of the team commenting on the benefits of different people writing regression tests in their own styles using their own techniques. We're capable of covering more edge cases when we don't have enforced uniformity. And I agree wholeheartedly.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>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"</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Note: I don't intend for any of this to mean I discourage the use of testharness.js tests. I don't. By all means, write them.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I just object to making it the "recommended way" of writing tests.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Thanks,</div><div> Brady</div><div><br class=""></div><div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">To continue moving forward, some of us are proposing to serve all tests in LayoutTests/wpt through the WPT server [1].</div><div class="">This would serve some purposes like increasing the use of WPT goodies: file-specific headers, templated tests (*.any.js), IDLParser, server-side scripts...</div><div class="">It could also ease test migration from WebKit to W3C WPT.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Some rules can guide whether adding tests to LayoutTests/wpt or LayoutTests/imported/w3c/web-platform-tests:</div><div class="">- WebKit specific tests (crash tests, tests using internals...) in LayoutTests/wpt</div><div class="">- Spec conformance/interoperability tests in LayoutTests/imported/w3c/web-platform-tests</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> y</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">[1]: <a href="https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171479" class="">bug 171479</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">webkit-dev mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org" class="">webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org</a><br class="">https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>