<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#c7">Comment # 7</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:youennf@gmail.com" title="youenn fablet <youennf@gmail.com>"> <span class="fn">youenn fablet</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre><span class="quote">> 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 >
I guess that in such a case, it is ok to change the test since we are no longer tracking it from a remote source. In an ideal world, changing the test so that FAIL disappears from the expectations files would be nice.
But this is probably a low priority.
I created <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - [Mac] Rebase some failing XMLHttpRequest tests"
href="show_bug.cgi?id=161036">bug 161036</a> to create Mac specific expectations for those tests.
It seems ok to me to have the "best" expectation files as the generic baseline.</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>