On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Tony Chang <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Glenn Adams <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Tony Chang <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I don't think we should support port specific ref test results. That >>> kind of misses the point of using a ref test in the first place. I mean, >>> you may as well check in port specific pixel results which are easier to >>> review for correctness. >>> >>> It may be the case that a ref test is not appropriate for what you're >>> trying to test. >> >> >> In the case of line break behavior, using reftests seem better than pixel >> tests, since there is less need for port-specific expectations. If I can >> come up with a text based approach (perhaps using range boundary rects), >> then I'll do so, but in the mean time, reftests seem a better option, >> especially for defining correctness based expectations (instead of merely >> regression based expectations). But we are straying from the original topic >> of this thread. > > > Did you try using the ahem font to see if you can get the same line break > behavior across ports? The ahem font doesn't always work for pixel tests > (anti-aliasing issues? maybe line height issues?), but I think the width of > each character should be the same.
Yeah, there were lots of pixel test failures in mountain lion w/ ahem due to changes in aliasing. -- Dirk _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
