So this is down to expected/failing and expected/previous? I must say that expected/failing feels less confusing. Easier to remember if I have to quickly recall what it means.
-Filip On Aug 17, 2012, at 7:36 PM, Dirk Pranke <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not sure if I like this idea or not. A couple of observations/questions > ... > > 1) I wouldn't want to call it '-correct' unless we were sure it was > correct; '-previous' is better in that regard > > 2) the issue with keeping a '-correct' in the tree is that it's quite > possible for a previous correct expectation to need to change to a > different expectation to still be correct. i.e., they get stale. I > fear that this could quickly become more confusing than it's worth. > It's also not clear to me when -previous gets updated or removed? > > 3) It also feels like '-previous' is something that we can just as > easily get from SVN/Git/whatever, in a completely foolproof and > automatic way. I grant that it's easier to just do a side by side > compare, but "diff against previous" isn't that hard to do and we > could easily write a wrapper to make it trivial ... > > 4) I'd want to work through the various branches in the workflow more > before I felt comfortable with this. When I was coming up with my > original proposal I originally wanted to allow -passing and -expected > to live side-by-side, but all sorts of complications arose, so I'd be > worried that we'd have them here, too. > > -- Dirk > > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Ojan Vafai <[email protected]> wrote: >> That matches my understanding. You proposed modification sounds fine to me. >> >> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> My understanding of the current proposal is this: >>> >>> 1) This applies to tests that fail deterministically, for reasons other >>> than a crash or hang. >>> 2) If the test has a new result that you're confident is a progression (or >>> neither better or worse), you simply update the -expected.txt file. >>> 3) If the test has a new result that you're confident is a regression, you >>> delete the -expected.txt file and check in the new results as -failing.txt. >>> 4) Ditto points 2 and 3 with respect to -expected.png, for image diffs. >>> 5) We would stop using all other ways of marking tests that fail >>> deterministically, including Skipped and the many things you could enter in >>> TestExpectations. >>> >>> Is that correct? >>> >>> If so, I'd like to suggest a minor modification. In place of point 3 >>> above, I propose the following: >>> >>> 3) If the test has a new result that you're confident is a regression, you >>> rename the -expected.txt file to -previous.txt (or maybe -correct.txt or >>> -pre-expected.txt or something) and check in the new results as >>> -expected.txt (unless there is already a -previous.txt, in which case just >>> update -expected and leave -previous). >>> >>> I propose this for the following reasons: >>> >>> - It maintains the longstanding approach that -expected.txt reflects what >>> is currently *expected* to happen, not whether it is right or wrong in some >>> abstract sense. It is an expectation, not a reference. >>> - It still leaves a clear indication of tests that somebody needs to look >>> at further, to determine if a regression occurred. >>> - It leaves both old and new result in place for easy comparison by an >>> expert. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Maciej >>> >>> >>> On Aug 17, 2012, at 6:06 PM, Ojan Vafai <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> That's my expectation although we probably can't do that for flaky tests >>>> :( >>>> >>>> e.g. sometimes fails with image diff. >>>> >>>> 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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
