If you're already in there, go ahead.
Thanks,
Avi
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Dirk Pranke <dpra...@google.com> wrote:
> I think this plan sounds good, too.
>
> I'm mucking with those scripts a bit at the moment for the LTTF
> reporting, so I can make this change tomorrow, unless someone else
> would rather do it.
>
> I might actually prefer FAIL-TEXT and FAIL-IMAGE, but that's just me.
> I agree that TEXTFAIL is better than TEXT. Anyone else care to express
> a preference?
>
> -- Dirk
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Stephen White <senorbla...@chromium.org>
> wrote:
> > Could we make them TEXTFAIL and IMAGEFAIL, just to be clear?
> > Stephen
> >
> > (And then post them to failblog if they're really embarassing.. J/K ;)
> > On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Ojan Vafai <o...@chromium.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> +pam, tc, darin in case they disagree with what I'm saying here.
> >>
> >> Also a bunch of current expectations would need to be modified. All
> >> the cases where there is currently FAIL would need to be changed to
> >> either FAIL or IMAGE or both if it's a text and image failure. You
> >> should be able to get most of the data for this by looking at the
> >> layout test dashboard. The only exception is you won't be able to
> >> distinguish tests that fail both image and text from tests that only
> >> fail image.
> >>
> >> A short-term solution could be to leave FAIL meaning IMAGE and/or TEXT
> >> and adding IMAGE and TEXT for image-only and text-only failures. Then
> >> we can gradually excise the FAIL lines from text_expectations.
> >>
> >> I think this would be a good permanent change, but I can see arguments
> >> to the contrary.
> >>
> >> Ojan
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Ojan Vafai <o...@chromium.org> wrote:
> >> > There is not. But adding it would be easy. There's been mention of
> >> > doing this for a while, but noone has made the effort to make it work.
> >> > All you'd have to do is:
> >> > -modify a few lines in TestExpectationsFile in
> >> > src/webkit/tools/layout_tests/layout_package/test_expectations.py to
> >> > add support for IMAGE in test_expectations.
> >> > -treat IMAGE and other failures separately in
> >> > src/webkit/tools/layout_tests/layout_package/compare_failures.py.
> >> > Specifically, take test_failures.FailureImageHashMismatch out of
> >> > FAILURE_TYPES and add an IMAGE_FAILURE_TYPE and use it below.
> >> >
> >> > Ojan
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Avi Drissman <a...@google.com>
> wrote:
> >> >> I've been looking into the pixel test situation on the Mac, and it
> >> >> isn't bad
> >> >> at all. Of ~5300 tests that have png results, we're failing ~800,
> most
> >> >> of
> >> >> which fall into huge buckets of easily-separable fail.
> >> >>
> >> >> Is there a way to specify that we're expecting an image compare to
> fail
> >> >> but
> >> >> still want the layout to succeed? We don't want to turn off the tests
> >> >> entirely while we fix them and run the chance of breaking something
> >> >> that
> >> >> layout would have caught.
> >> >>
> >> >> Avi
> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it
> is
> > violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. --
> > Schopenhauer
> >
> > > >
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
