At a quick glance, this looks great. I didn't look over every bug, but the
ones I did look at look good.
It would be great to check in a version of this script that we could run
when a number of tests fail (e.g. when doing a bad webkit merge). That way,
we can add them all to the local test_expectations.txt file and have it spit
out the new results.
Really, it would be great if the script filed bugs and then just modified
test_expectations.txt directly (without committing it). Also, the script
should remove any comments it moves into bug descriptions. We should get to
a point where all the comments about layout tests are in the bug
descriptions themselves instead of in this file.
I think it would be good to get the script checked in first and then run it
on the existing test_expectations.txt file.
Ojan
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Glenn Wilson <gwil...@google.com> wrote:
> Hi Pam & Ojan,
> I wrote a script that would extract all of the layout tests from
> test_expectations.txt that we haven't marked as WONTFIX and don't have a bug
> number. I also tried a simple heuristic to get the context of the layout
> test via nearby comments....it's not perfect, and I'll have to change some
> of them by hand, but many of the merge comments are getting picked up.
>
> I've also hooked up our library for creating demetrius bugs, so getting
> bugs made for these should be a matter of running the script with different
> arguments (I hope).
>
> What are your thoughts? Is these as descriptive/accurate as we need? Is
> 200+ bugs too many?
>
> Thanks!
> Glenn
>
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
