On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Dirk Pranke <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Dirk Pranke <[email protected]> wrote: >> > 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)? >> > >> > If not, what needs to happen so that we can do that? Do we need to >> > land more of the discussed changes to the syntax of the >> > TestExpectations file? Anything else? >> > >> > It would be nice to get rid of the complexity (both in the code and in >> > our heads) if we can. >> > >> >> It is clear that we're not at the point where we can stop using >> Skipped files yet. There appear to be at least two things that need to >> be done, before we reach that point, let alone remove ORWT (which is >> clearly right off the table right now). >> >> First, NRWT appears to still be missing some functionality, and that >> is keeping some people on ORWT. I was not aware of this, so thanks to >> those of you that have pointed this out. Please keep the bugs and >> feature requests coming! I have filed bug 88680 to track such issues. >> >> Second, it appears that some people feel strongly that NRWT "less >> hackable" than ORWT, and that this is a significant issue for them. I >> was not aware of this, at least not that it was a significant issue. I >> have filed bug 88841 to track any suggestions or improvements people >> might have for fixing this. >> >> Given the above, it seems that we can't yet switch to TestExpectations >> files, but ... >> >> There is another option: we could change ORWT to read the >> TestExpectations files instead and just honor the SKIP entries >> (ignoring the other expectations). Is that something we should >> consider? > > > That seems like a nice intermediate step so that people don't have to > maintain both files. I would aruge, however, that we should simplify the > syntax for SKIP entries (it should no mean block the work to make ORWT > support TestExpectations but it's probably easier to simplify the syntax > before ORWT supports it). >
Haven't we already "aruge"d this? :) I thought we already agreed that we want to change the syntax in the file (cf. bug 86796)? -- Dirk _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
