All non-flaky failures, yes. Flaky tests would still require entries in the TestExpectations files at this time; discussion of how to treat them is a separate topic.
-- Dirk On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Filip Pizlo <[email protected]> wrote: > +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
