On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Pam Greene <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm not convinced that passing tests we used to fail, or failing tests > differently, happens often enough to warrant the extra work of producing, > storing, and using expected-bad results. Of course, I may be completely > wrong. What did other people see in their batches of tests? > There were a number of tests in my set that were affected by innocuous upstream changes (the type that would cause me to rebaseline) but were also affected by some other critical bug that meant I couldn't rebaseline. I left comments about these on the relevant bugs and occasionally in the expectations file. Generally when looking at a new test I can tell whether it makes sense to rebaseline or not without the aid of "when did we fail this before?", since there are upstream baselines and also obvious correct and incorrect outputs given the test file. I agree that the benefit here is low (for me, near zero) and the cost is not. PK --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
