> On May 12, 2017, at 7:31 PM, Alexey Proskuryakov <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> 12 мая 2017 г., в 16:12, Sam Weinig <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> написал(а): >> >> >> >>> On May 12, 2017, at 2:49 PM, Alexey Proskuryakov <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> 12 мая 2017 г., в 14:38, Sam Weinig <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> написал(а): >>>> >>>> I regret piling on here, as I think this thread has diverged from it’s >>>> original purpose, but…I understand this frustration. That said, perhaps >>>> this is something we can solve with some tooling. For instance, a >>>> run-test-in-safari (as a parallel to run-safari) script could be made >>>> which starts the server, and then loads the test with the right URL in >>>> your built Safari (or MiniBrowser, or whatever). >>> >>> >>> That's still not good enough, as this means that I can't point someone else >>> to an instance of the test on trac.webkit.org <http://trac.webkit.org/> to >>> reproduce an issue. There is of course be another place to point to when/if >>> the test gets upstreamed, but even that doesn't support stable links like >>> trac does. >>> >>> That's not to mention that learning the name of this proposed script is no >>> easier than learning about run-webkit-httpd. >>> >>> - Alexey >>> >> >> >> I’m not sure what you mean by “good enough”. Good enough for what? What >> are we debating here? > > I think that I explained it very clearly, but let me try again. > > When there is a test failure that I need to communicate to others, I say > something "please open > <https://trac.webkit.org/export/216812/webkit/trunk/LayoutTests/fast/images/destroyed-image-load-event.html > > <https://trac.webkit.org/export/216812/webkit/trunk/LayoutTests/fast/images/border.html>> > in Safari to reproduce". That's very easy to do, and makes it very easy for > others to work on the issue. > If your test requires complex setup, like WPT does, then I may not have the > time to write up complicated steps to reproduce, or the person who gets the > bug may not have the time to follow them. Those people don't have a WebKit > checkout, so scripts won't help. This makes the test less effective, as > problems that it finds are less likely to be addressed.
If the person works on WebKit, then it seems unreasonable that they would do work without a checkout. If they don’t work on WebKit, then you could run wptserve on a machine somewhere and link to that copy. We have several servers that exist solely to host test content, it doesn’t seem like a big deal to make one of them update regularly and relaunch wptserve to pick up test harness changes. > > - Alexey > > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev > <https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev>
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
