On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Peter Kasting<[email protected]> wrote: > 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
This is all good feedback, thanks! To clarify, though: what do you think the cost will be? Perhaps you are assuming things about how I would implement this that are different than what I had in mind. -- Dirk --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
