On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Ojan Vafai <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Asserting a test case is 100% correct is nearly impossible for a large >> percentage of tests. The main advantage it gives us is the ability to have >> -expected mean "unsure". >> >> Lets instead only add -failing (i.e. no -passing). Leaving -expected to >> mean roughly what it does today to Chromium folk (roughly, as best we can >> tell this test is passing). -failing means it's *probably* an incorrect >> result but needs an expert to look at it to either mark it correct (i.e. >> rename it to -expected) or figure out how the root cause of the bug. >> >> This actually matches exactly what Chromium gardeners do today, except >> instead of putting a line in TestExpectations/Skipped to look at later, they >> checkin the -failing file to look at later, which has all the advantages >> Dirk listed in the other thread. > > > I'm much more comfortable with this proposal. >
While this obviously isn't my full proposal, it's at least a step down the path, so I'm fine with it. To Filip and Ryosuke's points, I am concurrently working to reduce the other complexity we have (e.g., moving everyone to TestExpectations, getting the new syntax implemented, etc) as well. -- Dirk _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
