On May 3, 2011, at 4:01 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote: > The results load considerably faster now. For runs where many tests fail, the > filesize is considerably smaller than the old-run-webkit-tests filesize. > Also, I've added in the image toggling behavior of old-run-webkit-tests and > made the aesthetics a bit closer to the old-run-webkit-test format. > > Some rough file sizes if you care about the details. > > old-run-webkit-tests 5 failures: 5k > old-run-webkit-tests 500 failures: 250k > new-run-webkit-tests 5 failures: 1k json + 25k htmljs > new-run-webkit-tests 500 failures: 60k json + 25k html/js
Thanks for all the work you've put into this, Ojan! Is there a link we can use to look at the latest and greatest? -Adam > On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Ojan Vafai <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[email protected]> wrote: > On Apr 21, 2011, at 4:47 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[email protected]> wrote: > >> (2) Slow to load (apparently it loads a 3 meg JSON file before displaying >> anything?) >> >> Loading it locally is very fast for me. I guess I should try it on a laptop >> though. > > I'm on a laptop. On my home WiFi, it takes 5-15 seconds. > > Yikes. >> For context, we reuse the JSON file that's used for the test runtime >> treemaps, which means we need an entry for each test. That json will will >> get .5 meg smaller shortly. There are a number of approaches to make this >> smaller if needed. Some options would be to generate a separate JSON file, >> or to make the data format in the existing json file more compact. > It seems to me that only data on unexpected failures should be needed for > initial display. Making the page load fast seems more important than > convenience of reusing an existing JSON file. I hope you will agree that 5-15 > second load time is not acceptable. I'm sure it would be even worse in poor > network conditions, where even the old-style pages can be a challenge to > load. I would also like to be able to look at results pages on my iPhone or > iPad without invoking the OOM killer. > > This should be relatively straightforward to fix. I'll ping again in a day or > two when it's done. I expect we should be able to get comparable, if not > smaller size than the old style pages. >> (3) I like PrettyPatch format better than wdiff format. >> >> This is orthogonal. new-run-webkit-tests will use whichever one is available >> on the system. The results.html file will display whichever one was used. > What would the bots display if this is deployed? > > I'm not 100% sure. Dirk can confirm, but I believe it will use whichever one > is on the system. So, if the bot has pretty-patch, but not wdiff, it would > only show the pretty-patch link. The Chromium bot I linked to has wdiff, but > not pretty-patch, hence the wdiff links. > > Ojan > > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
