On 07.11.11 15:44, Alan Stearns wrote:
What if we defer some of the W3C metadata work until tests were actually
submitted to the W3C?
1. Tests we pull from W3C can run from manifests, since they are provided.
2. Tests we develop ourselves just use a naming convention (refs are named
*-ref.html, and there's one ref per test even if that's duplicative)
3. When we choose to share a set of tests with the W3C, we do the extra work
of adding metadata to the tests and possibly refactoring to reduce the
number of -ref files. Once the W3C approves the tests we pull their copies
and delete ours.
I think this is the "best of both worlds" approach, in that it's easy to
import W3C tests (manifest is already there), easy to add new tests in
WebKit (no need to regenerate the manifest when landing, or on every
build), and gives a clear way of what needs to be done when upstreaming
tests to W3C.
The link-approach seems the least ideal, as it puts more strain on each
port to fix their DRT, versus adding features to the shared test
scripts, and going manifest-only adds more process for adding new tests
-- a process that I think we can defer and batch up to when we want to
upstream tests.
Tor Arne
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
