<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.webkit.org/" />
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_REOPENED "
title="REOPENED - Many of the expected results from imported/w3c are wrong (contain FAIL strings)"
href="https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161003#c6">Comment # 6</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_REOPENED "
title="REOPENED - Many of the expected results from imported/w3c are wrong (contain FAIL strings)"
href="https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161003">bug 161003</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:ap@webkit.org" title="Alexey Proskuryakov <ap@webkit.org>"> <span class="fn">Alexey Proskuryakov</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre><span class="quote">> Surely we don't want to ever have FAIL in our expected results; </span >
We actually do, for the reasons outlined in the comments above. Marking a test as Failure is quite detrimental.
Sometimes when dealing with old official test suites (like DOM2), a failure result on a subtest is the correct one, due to a change in newer spec version, so we don't even want to "fix" it. Yet we do want to run the test, to make sure that we don't start crashing, or that we don't accidentally revert to old behavior, and of course to verify other subtests in the test.
<span class="quote">> that makes it extremely difficult to track which tests are broken....</span >
The correct way to track bugs is in Bugzilla. I do not think that marking every partially failing test as Failure would work for tracking efforts - there is no priority, no discussion, no CC list etc.</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>