I'm all for getting rid of ORWT. I've observed some wrong code paths there that are probably not even used anymore. It makes more difficult to hack on a code which almost nobody uses and whose part of it is wrong and misleading.
NRWT is not that easy thought, but I see the unittests as an improvement. So we can keep the same standard of the rest of webkit contributions of writing a test to keep the behavior you're introducing. I would like to help on removing qt dependency of ORWT. Regards, On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Dirk Pranke <dpra...@chromium.org> wrote: > Hi Ossy, > > Thanks for your reply ... > > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Osztrogonac Csaba <o...@inf.u-szeged.hu> > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Dirk Pranke írta: > > > >> I believe most if not all of the ports have started using either > >> TestExpectations files or a combination of TestExpectations files > >> (except for the Apple Win port). > >> > >> Can we explicitly switch to the TestExpectations files at this point > >> and drop support for Skipped files on the other ports (and perhaps > >> disable old-run-webkit-tests for all but apple win)? > > > > > > Until NRWT can't handle cascaded TestExpectations - > > https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65834, > > Qt port can't drop supporting Skipped files. We have many tests skipped > in > > qt-5.0, qt-5.0-wk1, > > qt-5.0-wk2, wk2 Skipped lists. We can't migrate all of them to the only > one > > TestExpectations. > > > > Sorry, you're right, I should have mentioned that we would need to > support cascaded files before we can do anything. As Ojan mentioned, I > am actively working on that. > > One thing that would be helpful would be to how each port would like > to support using cascading files and modifiers. Assuming each of you > is free to do as you like, you can pick from several paths, e.g. you > could use one file, or one file per operating system, or one file per > os plus one file per version plus maybe a webkit-2 specific file > (roughly what most ports do today, I think), or something else? > > > > And I disagree with disabling ORWT at all. Qt port still support using > ORWT > > locally. > > It is better for gardening than NRWT. NRWT regularly has problems with > > generating > > new results for a given platform dir (qt,qt-5.0,qt-5.0-wk1,...), it > doesn't > > support > > the good --skipped=only option . > > I am not aware of these issues ... can you explain further, or file > bugs? In particular, I'm not sure I fully understand how all of the > different Qt version/platform combinations work, so maybe there are > issues there that can be improved? > > If ORWT is easier for you to use than NRWT, I would love to understand > why, so that hopefully I can improve NRWT for you as well. > > > If folks don't want to use it, just not use, but disabling for everyone > by fiat isn't a friendly thing. > > I'm sorry, I was under the impression that no one (apart from Apple > Win) was using ORWT any more, and I thought we had reached feature > parity between the two tools (or at least that NRWT supported > everything that ORWT did, obviously ORWT doesn't support reftests or a > bunch of other things that NRWT does). > > I'm not about to remove a tool that people are still using :). That > said, having two tools that are both widely used and do essentially > the same thing is unfortunate, so it would be good to converge > where/when/if we can, I think. > > -- Dirk > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev > -- Rafael Brandao @ INdT
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev