On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Dirk Pranke <[email protected]> wrote:
> We don't currently support port-specific reftests (or at least, not > very well), and we certainly should be trying to minimize where they > occur. Hmm, I actually used port specific reftest expectation files in a recent patch [1] (since rolled out), and it appeared to work (as a way to effectively rebaseline those expectations). So something seems to be working. [1] http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/133529 > At any rate, we encourage people these days to check in expected > failures rather than suppressing them using the TestExpectations > files. The problem is essentially a chicken and egg problem. I don't know what the per-port failures will be ahead of time, but I do know the set of "correct" expectations. Since I am (independently) unable to build/test all ports run by build bots, I would like to commit the set of tests plus known good expectations as a preliminary step (with a generic skip all tests for all ports), and then subsequently commit the feature itself, and then subsequently override the generic skip on a port specific basis, effectively re-enabling the tests on a port by port basis as I refine the feature patch (as needed) to handle port specific behavioral differences.
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
