On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Dirk Pranke <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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)? Right. I'm just suggesting that we should fix that bug first. - Ryosuke
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
