On Jun 13, 2012, at 12:12 PM, Dirk Pranke <dpra...@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Darin Adler <da...@apple.com> wrote: >> On Jun 12, 2012, at 5:17 PM, Ojan Vafai <o...@chromium.org> wrote: >> >>> It's great to use a fuzzer in order to find cases where we're broken and >>> then make reduced layout tests from those. >> >> Generally we do require a test each time we fix a bug. So it’s a strategy >> for the project to always make reduced tests when we find a bug. >> >> But using a fuzzer to find bugs and then making a regression test for each >> bug we find will not give us great coverage. We’d like tests that cover lots >> of the code paths in WebKit, even the ones without bugs. >> >> I’m not saying we should necessarily keep fuzzer-style tests, but to replace >> them we would need to add tests with good coverage, going beyond regression >> tests for bugs that existed in the project at one point. > > I have always been under the impression that LayoutTests were not just > intended for preventing regressions to bugfixes, but that we should also be > adding tests to establish correctness (and hopefully achieve good coverage) > there. That’s right. Did my words above give an impression to the contrary? I am trying to say that we should be sure to keep good coverage when we remove a fuzzer-style test, possibly by adding tests that cover the same code in a different way. I’m not making some kind of global statement about all the tests. -- Darin _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
