> On May 8, 2017, at 9:31 PM, youenn fablet <youe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Discussing with some WebKittens, testharness.js is more and more used in
> WebKit.
> Is it time to make testharness.js the recommended way of writing LayoutTests?
I am in favor of this. If we simplified the question to some form of, “do we
really need both testharness.js/testharnessreport.js and
js-test-pre.js/js-test-post.js?” I am even more in favor, as having two test
harnesses seems unnecessary, cumbersome and unfriendly to new contributors,
Do I think all tests should use testharness.js? No. Just as currently I don’t
think all tests should use testharness.js/testharnessreport.js. But for many
tests of new web platform features, it seems quite reasonable to start using
this harness, as the benefits, which include a good feature set, easier
interoperability with other browsers, and a reduced cost to upstreaming to
web-platform-tests, out weigh the costs, leaning something new (there are
probably other costs I am forgetting).
> To continue moving forward, some of us are proposing to serve all tests in
> LayoutTests/wpt through the WPT server [1].
> This would serve some purposes like increasing the use of WPT goodies:
> file-specific headers, templated tests (*.any.js), IDLParser, server-side
> scripts...
> It could also ease test migration from WebKit to W3C WPT.
This seems uncontroversial and great to me (which would make sense since I
asked you if we could do it). It’s just a new directory, like LayoutTests/http
where we can put tests that use the WPT server.
- Sam
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
