Re: [webkit-dev] Proposal for Device-Specific Layout Tests

[Jonathan Bedard]

> On Dec 12, 2018, at 11:28 PM, Maciej Stachowiak  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Dec 12, 2018, at 2:20 PM, Jonathan Bedard > > wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Dec 12, 2018, at 11:16 AM, Maciej Stachowiak >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 On Dec 12, 2018, at 10:07 AM, Jonathan Bedard >>> > wrote:
 
 Ryosuke and I discussed this on Monday, and in passing, Ryosuke mentioned 
 that he personally finds something like this:
 
.html
-expected.txt
-expected-.txt
 
 more clear than the directory method I proposed. After implementing the 
 above approach in the patch uploaded to 
 >, I’m inclined to agree. 
 Ryosuke’s approach achieves everything we need for device-type specific 
 expected results.
 
 This still doesn’t solve disagreements about how to organize test results 
 when a single test is run on multiple device types, but it seems like a 
 step in the right direction.
>>> 
>>> In my opinion, we should think about what kind of device and platform 
>>> differences we expect, and see if it can be organized into a single model. 
>>> It strikes me as odd to have two totally different ways to organize variant 
>>> results. And we don’t necessarily need to consider different platforms to 
>>> be only targets with different binaries.
>> 
>> I think that we have 4 major reasons for differing expected results on 
>> different platforms:
>>  1) Missing feature in the test harness
>>  2) Feature differentiation
>>  3) Bug (or quirk) from the device-type/platform/OS
>>  4) Tests sensitive to screen size and graphics support (deep color, for 
>> example)
>> 
>> #1 and #3 are well covered under our current scheme, and I haven’t seen 
>> these types of differences connected to device type. #2 is usually connected 
>> to platform, occasionally OS version and in a few notable cases, iPad vs 
>> iPhone. #4 is pretty much exclusively tied to device type and is a 
>> difference that we have mostly ignored.
>> 
>>> One issue with these flat device names is that they have no hierarchy. It 
>>> was hard for me to tell if your iPhone 7 vs iPhone 8 example of a 
>>> difference was real or just imaginary, but I’d expect more tests to be 
>>> different for iPhone vs iPad than different for iPhone 7 vs iPhone 8, so it 
>>> would be nice to have a hierarchy for iPhone as a device class with 
>>> different types of iPhones under it.
>> 
>> The iPhone 7 vs iPhone 8 difference was contrived, but even now we have a 
>> set of tests which must be run on an iPhone 7 instead of an iPhone SE 
>> because iPhone 7 supports deep color. So there are definitely circumstances 
>> where iPhones might have different expected results from other iPhones.
>> 
>> In this proposal, I haven’t detailed the specifics of parsing device types 
>> because that code actually already exists for creating simulated devices. At 
>> the moment, device types aren’t implemented as a hierarchy, they’re 
>> implemented by creating objects which use an “is a” comparison. A log from a 
>> simulator test run shows this pretty well 
>> >  
>> >.
>> 
>> Creating devices for iPhone SE running iOS 12
>> 11:52:45.780 92192 Creating device 'Managed 0', of type iPhone SE running 
>> iOS 12
>> Creating devices for iPhone 7 running iOS 12
>> 12:21:30.931 92192 Creating device 'Managed 0', of type iPhone 7 running iOS 
>> 12
>> Creating devices for iPad running iOS 12
>> 12:21:49.425 92192 Creating device 'Managed 0', of type iPad (6th 
>> generation) running iOS 12
>> While I haven’t given an example of a generic iPhone expected result, all 
>> the examples of iPad expected results have actually been that of a generic 
>> iPad, ‘iPad (6th generation)’ would we an example of a non-generic iPad. 
>> iPhones operate under a similar system, just as an ‘iPad (6th generation)’ 
>> uses generic iPad expectations, so too would an ‘iPhone 7’ use generic 
>> iPhone expectations, unless a more specific expected result was available. 
> 
> I’m thinking of this from the perspective of someone navigating the test 
> directory manually, rather than the perspective of the bots. Tools can 
> clearly deal with any layout we come up with, so it should be optimized first 
> for human use.
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> But of course, while a device hierarchy could be fit under a flat notion of 
>>> OS, the trick is how to fit it with a sequence of OS versions. Using 
>>> directories for OS versions but filename variations for devices classes 
>>> seems weird to me, and maybe almost backwards. I’d expect 

Re: [webkit-dev] Proposal for Device-Specific Layout Tests

[Maciej Stachowiak]

> On Dec 12, 2018, at 2:20 PM, Jonathan Bedard  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Dec 12, 2018, at 11:16 AM, Maciej Stachowiak > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Dec 12, 2018, at 10:07 AM, Jonathan Bedard >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Ryosuke and I discussed this on Monday, and in passing, Ryosuke mentioned 
>>> that he personally finds something like this:
>>> 
>>> .html
>>> -expected.txt
>>> -expected-.txt
>>> 
>>> more clear than the directory method I proposed. After implementing the 
>>> above approach in the patch uploaded to 
>>> >> >, I’m inclined to agree. 
>>> Ryosuke’s approach achieves everything we need for device-type specific 
>>> expected results.
>>> 
>>> This still doesn’t solve disagreements about how to organize test results 
>>> when a single test is run on multiple device types, but it seems like a 
>>> step in the right direction.
>> 
>> In my opinion, we should think about what kind of device and platform 
>> differences we expect, and see if it can be organized into a single model. 
>> It strikes me as odd to have two totally different ways to organize variant 
>> results. And we don’t necessarily need to consider different platforms to be 
>> only targets with different binaries.
> 
> I think that we have 4 major reasons for differing expected results on 
> different platforms:
>   1) Missing feature in the test harness
>   2) Feature differentiation
>   3) Bug (or quirk) from the device-type/platform/OS
>   4) Tests sensitive to screen size and graphics support (deep color, for 
> example)
> 
> #1 and #3 are well covered under our current scheme, and I haven’t seen these 
> types of differences connected to device type. #2 is usually connected to 
> platform, occasionally OS version and in a few notable cases, iPad vs iPhone. 
> #4 is pretty much exclusively tied to device type and is a difference that we 
> have mostly ignored.
> 
>> One issue with these flat device names is that they have no hierarchy. It 
>> was hard for me to tell if your iPhone 7 vs iPhone 8 example of a difference 
>> was real or just imaginary, but I’d expect more tests to be different for 
>> iPhone vs iPad than different for iPhone 7 vs iPhone 8, so it would be nice 
>> to have a hierarchy for iPhone as a device class with different types of 
>> iPhones under it.
> 
> The iPhone 7 vs iPhone 8 difference was contrived, but even now we have a set 
> of tests which must be run on an iPhone 7 instead of an iPhone SE because 
> iPhone 7 supports deep color. So there are definitely circumstances where 
> iPhones might have different expected results from other iPhones.
> 
> In this proposal, I haven’t detailed the specifics of parsing device types 
> because that code actually already exists for creating simulated devices. At 
> the moment, device types aren’t implemented as a hierarchy, they’re 
> implemented by creating objects which use an “is a” comparison. A log from a 
> simulator test run shows this pretty well 
>   
> >.
> 
> Creating devices for iPhone SE running iOS 12
> 11:52:45.780 92192 Creating device 'Managed 0', of type iPhone SE running iOS 
> 12
> Creating devices for iPhone 7 running iOS 12
> 12:21:30.931 92192 Creating device 'Managed 0', of type iPhone 7 running iOS 
> 12
> Creating devices for iPad running iOS 12
> 12:21:49.425 92192 Creating device 'Managed 0', of type iPad (6th generation) 
> running iOS 12
> While I haven’t given an example of a generic iPhone expected result, all the 
> examples of iPad expected results have actually been that of a generic iPad, 
> ‘iPad (6th generation)’ would we an example of a non-generic iPad. iPhones 
> operate under a similar system, just as an ‘iPad (6th generation)’ uses 
> generic iPad expectations, so too would an ‘iPhone 7’ use generic iPhone 
> expectations, unless a more specific expected result was available. 

I’m thinking of this from the perspective of someone navigating the test 
directory manually, rather than the perspective of the bots. Tools can clearly 
deal with any layout we come up with, so it should be optimized first for human 
use.

> 
>> 
>> But of course, while a device hierarchy could be fit under a flat notion of 
>> OS, the trick is how to fit it with a sequence of OS versions. Using 
>> directories for OS versions but filename variations for devices classes 
>> seems weird to me, and maybe almost backwards. I’d expect many device class 
>> differences to be permanent (iPhone vs iPad for example), while OS version 
>> differences may be transitory, in that they are often quirks of an older OS 
>> that will 

Re: [webkit-dev] Proposal for Device-Specific Layout Tests

[Jonathan Bedard]

> On Dec 12, 2018, at 11:16 AM, Maciej Stachowiak  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Dec 12, 2018, at 10:07 AM, Jonathan Bedard > > wrote:
>> 
>> Ryosuke and I discussed this on Monday, and in passing, Ryosuke mentioned 
>> that he personally finds something like this:
>> 
>>  .html
>>  -expected.txt
>>  -expected-.txt
>> 
>> more clear than the directory method I proposed. After implementing the 
>> above approach in the patch uploaded to 
>> > >, I’m inclined to agree. 
>> Ryosuke’s approach achieves everything we need for device-type specific 
>> expected results.
>> 
>> This still doesn’t solve disagreements about how to organize test results 
>> when a single test is run on multiple device types, but it seems like a step 
>> in the right direction.
> 
> In my opinion, we should think about what kind of device and platform 
> differences we expect, and see if it can be organized into a single model. It 
> strikes me as odd to have two totally different ways to organize variant 
> results. And we don’t necessarily need to consider different platforms to be 
> only targets with different binaries.

I think that we have 4 major reasons for differing expected results on 
different platforms:
1) Missing feature in the test harness
2) Feature differentiation
3) Bug (or quirk) from the device-type/platform/OS
4) Tests sensitive to screen size and graphics support (deep color, for 
example)

#1 and #3 are well covered under our current scheme, and I haven’t seen these 
types of differences connected to device type. #2 is usually connected to 
platform, occasionally OS version and in a few notable cases, iPad vs iPhone. 
#4 is pretty much exclusively tied to device type and is a difference that we 
have mostly ignored.

> One issue with these flat device names is that they have no hierarchy. It was 
> hard for me to tell if your iPhone 7 vs iPhone 8 example of a difference was 
> real or just imaginary, but I’d expect more tests to be different for iPhone 
> vs iPad than different for iPhone 7 vs iPhone 8, so it would be nice to have 
> a hierarchy for iPhone as a device class with different types of iPhones 
> under it.

The iPhone 7 vs iPhone 8 difference was contrived, but even now we have a set 
of tests which must be run on an iPhone 7 instead of an iPhone SE because 
iPhone 7 supports deep color. So there are definitely circumstances where 
iPhones might have different expected results from other iPhones.

In this proposal, I haven’t detailed the specifics of parsing device types 
because that code actually already exists for creating simulated devices. At 
the moment, device types aren’t implemented as a hierarchy, they’re implemented 
by creating objects which use an “is a” comparison. A log from a simulator test 
run shows this pretty well 
>.

Creating devices for iPhone SE running iOS 12
11:52:45.780 92192 Creating device 'Managed 0', of type iPhone SE running iOS 12
Creating devices for iPhone 7 running iOS 12
12:21:30.931 92192 Creating device 'Managed 0', of type iPhone 7 running iOS 12
Creating devices for iPad running iOS 12
12:21:49.425 92192 Creating device 'Managed 0', of type iPad (6th generation) 
running iOS 12
While I haven’t given an example of a generic iPhone expected result, all the 
examples of iPad expected results have actually been that of a generic iPad, 
‘iPad (6th generation)’ would we an example of a non-generic iPad. iPhones 
operate under a similar system, just as an ‘iPad (6th generation)’ uses generic 
iPad expectations, so too would an ‘iPhone 7’ use generic iPhone expectations, 
unless a more specific expected result was available. 

> 
> But of course, while a device hierarchy could be fit under a flat notion of 
> OS, the trick is how to fit it with a sequence of OS versions. Using 
> directories for OS versions but filename variations for devices classes seems 
> weird to me, and maybe almost backwards. I’d expect many device class 
> differences to be permanent (iPhone vs iPad for example), while OS version 
> differences may be transitory, in that they are often quirks of an older OS 
> that will not matter once we no longer support that OS.
> 
> I think it’s worth thinking through all the variations that would be needed 
> for a few real tests (ideally ones that already vary by OS version but which 
> would also vary by device type) and make a single model that makes sense.

I agree with the assessment of device types difference being more permanent 
while OS version difference are transitory. That’s why we’ve used the hierarchy 
for OS version, 

Re: [webkit-dev] Proposal for Device-Specific Layout Tests

[Maciej Stachowiak]

> On Dec 12, 2018, at 10:07 AM, Jonathan Bedard  wrote:
> 
> Ryosuke and I discussed this on Monday, and in passing, Ryosuke mentioned 
> that he personally finds something like this:
> 
>   .html
>   -expected.txt
>   -expected-.txt
> 
> more clear than the directory method I proposed. After implementing the above 
> approach in the patch uploaded to 
>  >, I’m inclined to agree. 
> Ryosuke’s approach achieves everything we need for device-type specific 
> expected results.
> 
> This still doesn’t solve disagreements about how to organize test results 
> when a single test is run on multiple device types, but it seems like a step 
> in the right direction.

In my opinion, we should think about what kind of device and platform 
differences we expect, and see if it can be organized into a single model. It 
strikes me as odd to have two totally different ways to organize variant 
results. And we don’t necessarily need to consider different platforms to be 
only targets with different binaries.

One issue with these flat device names is that they have no hierarchy. It was 
hard for me to tell if your iPhone 7 vs iPhone 8 example of a difference was 
real or just imaginary, but I’d expect more tests to be different for iPhone vs 
iPad than different for iPhone 7 vs iPhone 8, so it would be nice to have a 
hierarchy for iPhone as a device class with different types of iPhones under it.

But of course, while a device hierarchy could be fit under a flat notion of OS, 
the trick is how to fit it with a sequence of OS versions. Using directories 
for OS versions but filename variations for devices classes seems weird to me, 
and maybe almost backwards. I’d expect many device class differences to be 
permanent (iPhone vs iPad for example), while OS version differences may be 
transitory, in that they are often quirks of an older OS that will not matter 
once we no longer support that OS.

I think it’s worth thinking through all the variations that would be needed for 
a few real tests (ideally ones that already vary by OS version but which would 
also vary by device type) and make a single model that makes sense.

Maybe we should just use filename variations for everything, since that 
naturally expresses independent variation along multiple dimensions, while 
directories can only represent a single hierarchy. The trick then would be 
figuring out the priority order. If I have -expected-ios-ipad.txt 
and -expected-ios12.txt, then which is the right one to use on an 
iOS 12 iPad? Maybe we could have a convention to make ambiguous variation like 
this an error, or else decide whether OS version or device should take priority.

Regards,
Maciej



> 
> Jonathan
> 
>> On Dec 4, 2018, at 5:41 PM, Alexey Proskuryakov > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 4 дек. 2018 г., в 16:43, Ryosuke Niwa >> > написал(а):
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 12:55 PM Jonathan Bedard >> > wrote:
>>> These directories would be along-side tests.
>>> 
>>> I don't like that platform-specific results are under LayoutTests/platform 
>>> and device-specific results are next to the tests. We should stick with 
>>> either convention, not mix them up.
>>> 
>>> If we were to match LayoutTests/platforms, we should probably put it under 
>>> LayoutTests/devices, or alternatively inside each platform's test 
>>> directory. Alternatively, I'd be fine if we moved platform specific results 
>>> to those subdirectories. But having both conventions used throughout would 
>>> be an insane mess.
>> 
>> I'm not ready to have an opinion about which approach is best, however I 
>> wanted to make a general comment about unification.
>> 
>> I think that the attempt to abstract all sorts of differences behind the 
>> "port" and "platform" concepts in webkitpy was short sighted. There are many 
>> subtle and not so subtle variations of behaviors (OS, OS family, specific OS 
>> version, build style, specific API used from the build when there are 
>> multiple options). Trying to represent these by god objects is creating a 
>> lot more inconsistency and confusion than necessary.
>> 
>> One good thing about platform directories is that we can specify inheritance 
>> order with these in a way that is somewhat meaningful. If we are to have an 
>> inheritance order for device types, then continuing with the approach would 
>> make sense. But if the rule is exact match, or best match, then storing them 
>> as -expected directories makes good sense to me.
>> 
>> - Alexey
>> 
> 
> ___
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] Proposal for Device-Specific Layout Tests

[Jonathan Bedard]

Ryosuke and I discussed this on Monday, and in passing, Ryosuke mentioned that 
he personally finds something like this:

.html
-expected.txt
-expected-.txt

more clear than the directory method I proposed. After implementing the above 
approach in the patch uploaded to 
>, I’m inclined to agree. 
Ryosuke’s approach achieves everything we need for device-type specific 
expected results.

This still doesn’t solve disagreements about how to organize test results when 
a single test is run on multiple device types, but it seems like a step in the 
right direction.

Jonathan

> On Dec 4, 2018, at 5:41 PM, Alexey Proskuryakov  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> 4 дек. 2018 г., в 16:43, Ryosuke Niwa > > написал(а):
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 12:55 PM Jonathan Bedard > > wrote:
>> These directories would be along-side tests.
>> 
>> I don't like that platform-specific results are under LayoutTests/platform 
>> and device-specific results are next to the tests. We should stick with 
>> either convention, not mix them up.
>> 
>> If we were to match LayoutTests/platforms, we should probably put it under 
>> LayoutTests/devices, or alternatively inside each platform's test directory. 
>> Alternatively, I'd be fine if we moved platform specific results to those 
>> subdirectories. But having both conventions used throughout would be an 
>> insane mess.
> 
> I'm not ready to have an opinion about which approach is best, however I 
> wanted to make a general comment about unification.
> 
> I think that the attempt to abstract all sorts of differences behind the 
> "port" and "platform" concepts in webkitpy was short sighted. There are many 
> subtle and not so subtle variations of behaviors (OS, OS family, specific OS 
> version, build style, specific API used from the build when there are 
> multiple options). Trying to represent these by god objects is creating a lot 
> more inconsistency and confusion than necessary.
> 
> One good thing about platform directories is that we can specify inheritance 
> order with these in a way that is somewhat meaningful. If we are to have an 
> inheritance order for device types, then continuing with the approach would 
> make sense. But if the rule is exact match, or best match, then storing them 
> as -expected directories makes good sense to me.
> 
> - Alexey
> 

___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] Proposal for Device-Specific Layout Tests

[Alexey Proskuryakov]

> 4 дек. 2018 г., в 16:43, Ryosuke Niwa  написал(а):
> 
> 
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 12:55 PM Jonathan Bedard  > wrote:
> These directories would be along-side tests.
> 
> I don't like that platform-specific results are under LayoutTests/platform 
> and device-specific results are next to the tests. We should stick with 
> either convention, not mix them up.
> 
> If we were to match LayoutTests/platforms, we should probably put it under 
> LayoutTests/devices, or alternatively inside each platform's test directory. 
> Alternatively, I'd be fine if we moved platform specific results to those 
> subdirectories. But having both conventions used throughout would be an 
> insane mess.

I'm not ready to have an opinion about which approach is best, however I wanted 
to make a general comment about unification.

I think that the attempt to abstract all sorts of differences behind the "port" 
and "platform" concepts in webkitpy was short sighted. There are many subtle 
and not so subtle variations of behaviors (OS, OS family, specific OS version, 
build style, specific API used from the build when there are multiple options). 
Trying to represent these by god objects is creating a lot more inconsistency 
and confusion than necessary.

One good thing about platform directories is that we can specify inheritance 
order with these in a way that is somewhat meaningful. If we are to have an 
inheritance order for device types, then continuing with the approach would 
make sense. But if the rule is exact match, or best match, then storing them as 
-expected directories makes good sense to me.

- Alexey

___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] Proposal for Device-Specific Layout Tests

[Jonathan Bedard]

> On Dec 4, 2018, at 4:43 PM, Ryosuke Niwa  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 12:55 PM Jonathan Bedard  > wrote:
> These directories would be along-side tests.
> 
> I don't like that platform-specific results are under LayoutTests/platform 
> and device-specific results are next to the tests. We should stick with 
> either convention, not mix them up.
> 
> If we were to match LayoutTests/platforms, we should probably put it under 
> LayoutTests/devices, or alternatively inside each platform's test directory. 
> Alternatively, I'd be fine if we moved platform specific results to those 
> subdirectories. But having both conventions used throughout would be an 
> insane mess.
> 
> It is different from how we treat platforms because platforms have 
> historically been used to differentiate between different binary types, which 
> doesn’t really apply here. We also have platform versions which we use for 
> inheriting expectations between versions, that idea also doesn’t transfer 
> well to the case.
> 
> I don't think these differences are all that interesting. The problem I have 
> with this approach is that this will be yet another concept new contributor 
> has to learn, and yet another layer of abstraction & a new set of 
> configurations we'd have to worry about when figuring out which test 
> expectation will be used & needs to be updated when WebKit's behavior changes.

The platform solution to this has similar problems (as mentioned bellow, 
combining the results from multiple platforms into a single logical platform). 
The best we will be able to do here is come up with a system that effects as 
few tests as possible. The reason I like optionally splitting expected results 
for a test into a directory is because this idiom transfers well to displaying 
test failures when a test has run multiple times. I don’t see a good solution 
to that problem through the platform technique.

> 
> Creating new device-platforms would make EWS and running layout tests locally 
> very confusing
> 
> Why?
>  
> and wouldn’t really solve the run-a-test-twice problem.
> 
> Again, why?

Because if devices are platforms, then 'run-webkit-tests —ios’ needs to run 2 
platforms. This is a huge departure from what a ‘platform’ conceptually is. We 
would need to invent a whole new way to display results, because what a 
contributor is thinking of as a platform is, in fact, multiple platforms.

> 
> We would have to have an entirely different set of results for each device 
> type, and when running on-device tests, the user would have to be aware 
> enough to use the platform which corresponds to the device (or devices) they 
> had attached. This would be a pretty radical departure from the way things 
> currently work, were iPhone 7 and iPad tests run with the rest of the iOS 
> tests.
> 
> I don't see how treating iPhone 7 as a platform would pose any issue here. 
> It's like a variant of iOS port like Mountain Lion is a variant of macOS port.
> 
> What I also don't understand is what happens when iOS behavior changes 
> between iOS 10 and iOS 11 on iPhone 7. Where would the expected result live 
> for those two operating systems and how are they named?

I think that example illustrates why the platform idiom is not right for 
handling device specific expected results. Under my proposal, you could place a 
platform + device specific expectation like so:

some-dir/
some-test.html
some-test-expected.txt
platform/ios-10/some-dir/some-test-expected/iPhone-7.txt
platform/ios-11/some-dir/some-test-expected/iPhone-7.txt

Jonathan

> 
> - R. Niwa
> 
>> On Dec 3, 2018, at 6:25 PM, Ryosuke Niwa > > wrote:
>> 
>> Are those directories along side tests? If so, that seems very different 
>> from the approach we take with platforms. Why the discrepancy?
>> 
>> Can't we just treat them as specific type of iOS platforms?
>> 
>> - R. Niwa
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 4:05 PM Jonathan Bedard > > wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>> 
>> I have a proposal to make writing layout tests for specific types of devices 
>> more straight-forward.
>> 
>> Currently, we name directories with the beginning of a device name, such as 
>> ‘iphone7’ or ‘ipad’ and hope that those directory names match the name of a 
>> device type in the associated port’s CUSTOM_DEVICE_CLASS. This causes some 
>> problems, however, in a few circumstances. The first problem arises when two 
>> ports have associated devices (such as watchOS and iOS), in this case, a 
>> directory which maps to a device type on one port might not on another. The 
>> second problem is that our current code for managing devices assumes that 
>> devices can be booted on-demand, which is not the case in on-device testing, 
>> where we need to run different sets of tests depending on the type of device 
>> attached. The last (and most important) problem is that we 

Re: [webkit-dev] Proposal for Device-Specific Layout Tests

[Ryosuke Niwa]

On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 12:55 PM Jonathan Bedard  wrote:

> These directories would be along-side tests.
>

I don't like that platform-specific results are under LayoutTests/platform
and device-specific results are next to the tests. We should stick with
either convention, not mix them up.

If we were to match LayoutTests/platforms, we should probably put it under
LayoutTests/devices, or alternatively inside each platform's test
directory. Alternatively, I'd be fine if we moved platform specific results
to those subdirectories. But having both conventions used throughout would
be an insane mess.

It is different from how we treat platforms because platforms have
> historically been used to differentiate between different binary types,
> which doesn’t really apply here. We also have platform versions which we
> use for inheriting expectations between versions, that idea also doesn’t
> transfer well to the case.
>

I don't think these differences are all that interesting. The problem I
have with this approach is that this will be yet another concept new
contributor has to learn, and yet another layer of abstraction & a new set
of configurations we'd have to worry about when figuring out which test
expectation will be used & needs to be updated when WebKit's behavior
changes.

Creating new device-platforms would make EWS and running layout tests
> locally very confusing
>

Why?


> and wouldn’t really solve the run-a-test-twice problem.
>

Again, why?

We would have to have an entirely different set of results for each device
> type, and when running on-device tests, the user would have to be aware
> enough to use the platform which corresponds to the device (or devices)
> they had attached. This would be a pretty radical departure from the way
> things currently work, were iPhone 7 and iPad tests run with the rest of
> the iOS tests.
>

I don't see how treating iPhone 7 as a platform would pose any issue here.
It's like a variant of iOS port like Mountain Lion is a variant of macOS
port.

What I also don't understand is what happens when iOS behavior changes
between iOS 10 and iOS 11 on iPhone 7. Where would the expected result live
for those two operating systems and how are they named?

- R. Niwa

On Dec 3, 2018, at 6:25 PM, Ryosuke Niwa  wrote:
>
> Are those directories along side tests? If so, that seems very different
> from the approach we take with platforms. Why the discrepancy?
>
> Can't we just treat them as specific type of iOS platforms?
>
> - R. Niwa
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 4:05 PM Jonathan Bedard  wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> I have a proposal to make writing layout tests for specific types of
>> devices more straight-forward.
>>
>> Currently, we name directories with the beginning of a device name, such
>> as ‘iphone7’ or ‘ipad’ and hope that those directory names match the name
>> of a device type in the associated port’s CUSTOM_DEVICE_CLASS. This causes
>> some problems, however, in a few circumstances. The first problem arises
>> when two ports have associated devices (such as watchOS and iOS), in this
>> case, a directory which maps to a device type on one port might not on
>> another. The second problem is that our current code for managing devices
>> assumes that devices can be booted on-demand, which is not the case in
>> on-device testing, where we need to run different sets of tests depending
>> on the type of device attached. The last (and most important) problem is
>> that we cannot run the same test twice on two different devices in a single
>> test run (ie, run test.html once on an iPhone and once on an iPad).
>>
>> To resolve this, I propose 3 changes to how we organize layout tests.
>>
>> 1) Allow *-expected.txt files to be device-specific <
>> https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=192162>
>>
>> The idea here would be to optionally allow *-expected.txt files to be a
>> directory looking something like this:
>>
>> dir/
>> test.html
>> test-expected/
>> iPhone-7.txt
>>
>> Under this scheme, the name of the .txt file would map directly to a
>> device type. Multiple device-specific expectations would be permitted, but
>> making sense of these results requires change #2.
>>
>> 2) Support multiple results for a specific test <
>> https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=192163>
>>
>> Similar to #1, we need to allow test results to be attributed to a device
>> type. This would be done with a similar scheme, where results for a test
>> would optionally be saved as a directory looking like this:
>>
>> dir/
>> test/
>> iPhone-7-actual.txt
>> iPhone-7-diff.txt
>> iPhone-7-expected.txt
>> iPhone-7-diff.html
>> iPhone-8-actual.txt
>> iPhone-8-diff.txt
>> iPhone-8-expected.txt
>> iPhone-8-diff.html
>>
>> When reporting, results would be reported to as a new ‘queue’ of the form
>> '-’.
>>
>> 3) Provide device specific tags in test expectations <
>> https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=192164>
>>

Re: [webkit-dev] Proposal for Device-Specific Layout Tests

[Jonathan Bedard]

These directories would be along-side tests.

It is different from how we treat platforms because platforms have historically 
been used to differentiate between different binary types, which doesn’t really 
apply here. We also have platform versions which we use for inheriting 
expectations between versions, that idea also doesn’t transfer well to the case.

Creating new device-platforms would make EWS and running layout tests locally 
very confusing, and wouldn’t really solve the run-a-test-twice problem. We 
would have to have an entirely different set of results for each device type, 
and when running on-device tests, the user would have to be aware enough to use 
the platform which corresponds to the device (or devices) they had attached. 
This would be a pretty radical departure from the way things currently work, 
were iPhone 7 and iPad tests run with the rest of the iOS tests.

Jonathan

> On Dec 3, 2018, at 6:25 PM, Ryosuke Niwa  wrote:
> 
> Are those directories along side tests? If so, that seems very different from 
> the approach we take with platforms. Why the discrepancy?
> 
> Can't we just treat them as specific type of iOS platforms?
> 
> - R. Niwa
> 
> 
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 4:05 PM Jonathan Bedard  > wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> 
> I have a proposal to make writing layout tests for specific types of devices 
> more straight-forward.
> 
> Currently, we name directories with the beginning of a device name, such as 
> ‘iphone7’ or ‘ipad’ and hope that those directory names match the name of a 
> device type in the associated port’s CUSTOM_DEVICE_CLASS. This causes some 
> problems, however, in a few circumstances. The first problem arises when two 
> ports have associated devices (such as watchOS and iOS), in this case, a 
> directory which maps to a device type on one port might not on another. The 
> second problem is that our current code for managing devices assumes that 
> devices can be booted on-demand, which is not the case in on-device testing, 
> where we need to run different sets of tests depending on the type of device 
> attached. The last (and most important) problem is that we cannot run the 
> same test twice on two different devices in a single test run (ie, run 
> test.html once on an iPhone and once on an iPad).
> 
> To resolve this, I propose 3 changes to how we organize layout tests.
> 
> 1) Allow *-expected.txt files to be device-specific 
>  >
> 
> The idea here would be to optionally allow *-expected.txt files to be a 
> directory looking something like this:
> 
> dir/
> test.html
> test-expected/
> iPhone-7.txt
> 
> Under this scheme, the name of the .txt file would map directly to a device 
> type. Multiple device-specific expectations would be permitted, but making 
> sense of these results requires change #2.
> 
> 2) Support multiple results for a specific test 
>  >
> 
> Similar to #1, we need to allow test results to be attributed to a device 
> type. This would be done with a similar scheme, where results for a test 
> would optionally be saved as a directory looking like this:
> 
> dir/
> test/
> iPhone-7-actual.txt
> iPhone-7-diff.txt
> iPhone-7-expected.txt
> iPhone-7-diff.html
> iPhone-8-actual.txt
> iPhone-8-diff.txt
> iPhone-8-expected.txt
> iPhone-8-diff.html
> 
> When reporting, results would be reported to as a new ‘queue’ of the form 
> '-’.
> 
> 3) Provide device specific tags in test expectations 
>  >
> 
> We already have Debug/Release as well as version tags in our test 
> expectations. The addition here would be device-type tags, those tags would 
> look like this:
> 
> [ iPhone 7 ] dir/test.html [ Pass ]
> [ iPad ] dir/other-test.html [ Pass ]
> 
> These tags would allow for 2 features. The first is similar to existing tags, 
> allowing a certain test (or group of tests) to have different expectations or 
> to be skipped entirely on certain device types. The second feature allows for 
> tests and groups of tests to be run on multiple different devices in a single 
> instantiation of run-webkit-tests. For example,
> 
> [ iPhone 7, iPad ] dir/some-dir/ [ Pass ]
> 
> would indicate that every test in dir/some-dir/ will be run on BOTH iPhone 7 
> and iPad.
> 
> I would welcome anyone else’s thoughts on this.
> 
> Jonathan
> ___
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org 
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev 
> 

___
webkit-dev mailing list

Re: [webkit-dev] Proposal for Device-Specific Layout Tests

[Ryosuke Niwa]

Are those directories along side tests? If so, that seems very different
from the approach we take with platforms. Why the discrepancy?

Can't we just treat them as specific type of iOS platforms?

- R. Niwa


On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 4:05 PM Jonathan Bedard  wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> I have a proposal to make writing layout tests for specific types of
> devices more straight-forward.
>
> Currently, we name directories with the beginning of a device name, such
> as ‘iphone7’ or ‘ipad’ and hope that those directory names match the name
> of a device type in the associated port’s CUSTOM_DEVICE_CLASS. This causes
> some problems, however, in a few circumstances. The first problem arises
> when two ports have associated devices (such as watchOS and iOS), in this
> case, a directory which maps to a device type on one port might not on
> another. The second problem is that our current code for managing devices
> assumes that devices can be booted on-demand, which is not the case in
> on-device testing, where we need to run different sets of tests depending
> on the type of device attached. The last (and most important) problem is
> that we cannot run the same test twice on two different devices in a single
> test run (ie, run test.html once on an iPhone and once on an iPad).
>
> To resolve this, I propose 3 changes to how we organize layout tests.
>
> 1) Allow *-expected.txt files to be device-specific <
> https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=192162>
>
> The idea here would be to optionally allow *-expected.txt files to be a
> directory looking something like this:
>
> dir/
> test.html
> test-expected/
> iPhone-7.txt
>
> Under this scheme, the name of the .txt file would map directly to a
> device type. Multiple device-specific expectations would be permitted, but
> making sense of these results requires change #2.
>
> 2) Support multiple results for a specific test <
> https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=192163>
>
> Similar to #1, we need to allow test results to be attributed to a device
> type. This would be done with a similar scheme, where results for a test
> would optionally be saved as a directory looking like this:
>
> dir/
> test/
> iPhone-7-actual.txt
> iPhone-7-diff.txt
> iPhone-7-expected.txt
> iPhone-7-diff.html
> iPhone-8-actual.txt
> iPhone-8-diff.txt
> iPhone-8-expected.txt
> iPhone-8-diff.html
>
> When reporting, results would be reported to as a new ‘queue’ of the form
> '-’.
>
> 3) Provide device specific tags in test expectations <
> https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=192164>
>
> We already have Debug/Release as well as version tags in our test
> expectations. The addition here would be device-type tags, those tags would
> look like this:
>
> [ iPhone 7 ] dir/test.html [ Pass ]
> [ iPad ] dir/other-test.html [ Pass ]
>
> These tags would allow for 2 features. The first is similar to existing
> tags, allowing a certain test (or group of tests) to have different
> expectations or to be skipped entirely on certain device types. The second
> feature allows for tests and groups of tests to be run on multiple
> different devices in a single instantiation of run-webkit-tests. For
> example,
>
> [ iPhone 7, iPad ] dir/some-dir/ [ Pass ]
>
> would indicate that every test in dir/some-dir/ will be run on BOTH iPhone
> 7 and iPad.
>
> I would welcome anyone else’s thoughts on this.
>
> Jonathan
> ___
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
>
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

[webkit-dev] Proposal for Device-Specific Layout Tests

[Jonathan Bedard]

Hello everyone,

I have a proposal to make writing layout tests for specific types of devices 
more straight-forward.

Currently, we name directories with the beginning of a device name, such as 
‘iphone7’ or ‘ipad’ and hope that those directory names match the name of a 
device type in the associated port’s CUSTOM_DEVICE_CLASS. This causes some 
problems, however, in a few circumstances. The first problem arises when two 
ports have associated devices (such as watchOS and iOS), in this case, a 
directory which maps to a device type on one port might not on another. The 
second problem is that our current code for managing devices assumes that 
devices can be booted on-demand, which is not the case in on-device testing, 
where we need to run different sets of tests depending on the type of device 
attached. The last (and most important) problem is that we cannot run the same 
test twice on two different devices in a single test run (ie, run test.html 
once on an iPhone and once on an iPad).

To resolve this, I propose 3 changes to how we organize layout tests.

1) Allow *-expected.txt files to be device-specific 


The idea here would be to optionally allow *-expected.txt files to be a 
directory looking something like this:

dir/
test.html
test-expected/
iPhone-7.txt

Under this scheme, the name of the .txt file would map directly to a device 
type. Multiple device-specific expectations would be permitted, but making 
sense of these results requires change #2.

2) Support multiple results for a specific test 


Similar to #1, we need to allow test results to be attributed to a device type. 
This would be done with a similar scheme, where results for a test would 
optionally be saved as a directory looking like this:

dir/
test/
iPhone-7-actual.txt
iPhone-7-diff.txt
iPhone-7-expected.txt
iPhone-7-diff.html
iPhone-8-actual.txt
iPhone-8-diff.txt
iPhone-8-expected.txt
iPhone-8-diff.html

When reporting, results would be reported to as a new ‘queue’ of the form 
'-’.

3) Provide device specific tags in test expectations 


We already have Debug/Release as well as version tags in our test expectations. 
The addition here would be device-type tags, those tags would look like this:

[ iPhone 7 ] dir/test.html [ Pass ]
[ iPad ] dir/other-test.html [ Pass ]

These tags would allow for 2 features. The first is similar to existing tags, 
allowing a certain test (or group of tests) to have different expectations or 
to be skipped entirely on certain device types. The second feature allows for 
tests and groups of tests to be run on multiple different devices in a single 
instantiation of run-webkit-tests. For example,

[ iPhone 7, iPad ] dir/some-dir/ [ Pass ]

would indicate that every test in dir/some-dir/ will be run on BOTH iPhone 7 
and iPad.

I would welcome anyone else’s thoughts on this.

Jonathan
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev