Closing the loop: the changes in bug 1429580 have landed, and so now
doing "skip-if(foo) include bar/reftest.list" behaves as one would
expect, and skips the include entirely if the foo condition is true.
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 4:01 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Wednesday 2018-01-10 10:49 -0500
On Wednesday 2018-01-10 10:49 -0500, Kartikaya Gupta wrote:
> This will probably come as a surprise to many (as it does to me each
> time I rediscover it), but if, in a reftest.list file, you do
> something like this (real example from [1]):
>
> skip-if(browserIsRemote) include ogg-video/reftest.l
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 3:40 PM, Daniel Holbert wrote:
> I'd lean slightly towards allowing the syntax and making it actually skip
> the include expression. This construct seems valuable to have in our
> toolbox (to be used only sparingly, e.g. for cases of platform-specific
> features).
Yeah I'
Agreed that this is footgunny & unexpected!
I'd lean slightly towards allowing the syntax and making it actually skip
the include expression. This construct seems valuable to have in our
toolbox (to be used only sparingly, e.g. for cases of platform-specific
features).
(Based on a quick grep[1],
Another option would be to keep allowing this syntax of "skip-if(x)
include some/reftest.list" but actually make it skip the entire
include if the condition "x" is true.
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 10:49 AM, Kartikaya Gupta wrote:
> This will probably come as a surprise to many (as it does to me each
This will probably come as a surprise to many (as it does to me each
time I rediscover it), but if, in a reftest.list file, you do
something like this (real example from [1]):
skip-if(browserIsRemote) include ogg-video/reftest.list
this may not do what you expect. My expectation, at least, is tha
6 matches
Mail list logo
