On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Brady Eidson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On May 8, 2017, at 10:44 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 10:17 PM, Brady Eidson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> But now talking about testharness.js directly, I object on the grounds of "a >>> file:// regression test is dirt easy to hack on and work with, whereas >>> anything that requires me to have an httpd running is a PITA" >> >> I think whether we use file:// or http:// is orthogonal point to using >> testharness.js. Many of the tests Chris and I have written using >> testharness.js are checked into regular LayoutTests/ directories, and >> they work just fine. > > Yes, I misunderstood this in Youenn's original message. Good to know! >> >>> I just object to making it the "recommended way" of writing tests. >> >> Would you equally object to making js-test.js / js-test-pre.js the >> recommended way of writing tests? > > Yes. > >> If not, why? > > N/A > >> What we're suggesting is to give preferential treatments to >> testharness.js over js-test.js / js-test-pre.js when you were already >> planning to write a test with the latter two scripts. > > "It's okay to write your test however you'd like. If you were considering > using js-test, maybe you should consider using testharness instead." > > Is that's what's being proposed?
The thing I specifically asked Youenn to ask is, whether we should place a test inside LayoutTests/wpt like LayoutTests/http/tests when we want to write a test using testharness.js which requires some sort of network code. Since people have had some opinions about directory structures in the past. - R. Niwa _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
