+1, contingent upon the following: are we agreeing that all current uses of TEXT, IMAGE, and so forth in TestExpectations should be in the *very near term* following Dirk's change be turned into -failing files?
-Filip On 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. > > - Ryosuke > > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
