Right--the question is for the long term if this will be a useful feature to
keep around or if we'll be dropping it once the Mac tests work. I'll take
the change either way but I can appreciate the extra granularity that this
would provide.
Pam:
> having a way to say "oh, it's 'only' the image that's bad" will increase
> maintenance burden and support ignoring problems.
>
We already have layout tests that deserve more attention than they get (thus
the LTTF). IMAGEFAIL tests are no less broken than TEXTFAIL, and if the
long-term aim is to not have *any* FAILs in the file anyway then I can see
real use in the granularity.
Avi
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Amanda Walker <ama...@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Ojan Vafai <o...@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> I don't think this is just about ignoring image-only results on mac for
>> the short-term. My subjective sense is that we have many tests that start
>> out as failing only image comparisons (e.g. due to theming), but over time
>> another failure creeps in that causes a text failure that goes unnoticed.
>> We'd ideally like to notice that extra regression when it happens as it
>> might be easy to identify and fix right at the time the regression occurs.
>>
>
> That's pretty much where we are with the Mac pixel tests--we do want to
> know if layout geometry regresses, even if there's a known pixel expectation
> failure (a color, or a missing spelling underline, or whatever it is for
> that test).
>
> --Amanda
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
