login bonus bet365 live streaming full screen_william hill desktop site_free login m88bet?mobile

Tue, 04 Dec 2018 12:58:18 -0800

These directories would be along-side tests.

It is different from how we treat platforms because platforms have historically 
been used to differentiate between different binary types, which doesn¡¯t really 
apply here. We also have platform versions which we use for inheriting 
expectations between versions, that idea also doesn¡¯t transfer well to the case.

Creating new device-platforms would make EWS and running layout tests locally 
very confusing, and wouldn¡¯t really solve the run-a-test-twice problem. We 
would have to have an entirely different set of results for each device type, 
and when running on-device tests, the user would have to be aware enough to use 
the platform which corresponds to the device (or devices) they had attached. 
This would be a pretty radical departure from the way things currently work, 
were iPhone 7 and iPad tests run with the rest of the iOS tests.

Jonathan

> On Dec 3, 2018, at 6:25 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@webkit.org> wrote:
> 
> Are those directories along side tests? If so, that seems very different from 
> the approach we take with platforms. Why the discrepancy?
> 
> Can't we just treat them as specific type of iOS platforms?
> 
> - R. Niwa
> 
> 
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 4:05 PM Jonathan Bedard <jbed...@apple.com 
> <mailto:jbed...@apple.com>> wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> 
> I have a proposal to make writing layout tests for specific types of devices 
> more straight-forward.
> 
> Currently, we name directories with the beginning of a device name, such as 
> ¡®iphone7¡¯ or ¡®ipad¡¯ and hope that those directory names match the name of a 
> device type in the associated port¡¯s CUSTOM_DEVICE_CLASS. This causes some 
> problems, however, in a few circumstances. The first problem arises when two 
> ports have associated devices (such as watchOS and iOS), in this case, a 
> directory which maps to a device type on one port might not on another. The 
> second problem is that our current code for managing devices assumes that 
> devices can be booted on-demand, which is not the case in on-device testing, 
> where we need to run different sets of tests depending on the type of device 
> attached. The last (and most important) problem is that we cannot run the 
> same test twice on two different devices in a single test run (ie, run 
> test.html once on an iPhone and once on an iPad).
> 
> To resolve this, I propose 3 changes to how we organize layout tests.
> 
> 1) Allow *-expected.txt files to be device-specific 
> <https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=192162 
> <https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=192162>>
> 
> The idea here would be to optionally allow *-expected.txt files to be a 
> directory looking something like this:
> 
> dir/
>     test.html
>     test-expected/
>         iPhone-7.txt
> 
> Under this scheme, the name of the .txt file would map directly to a device 
> type. Multiple device-specific expectations would be permitted, but making 
> sense of these results requires change #2.
> 
> 2) Support multiple results for a specific test 
> <https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=192163 
> <https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=192163>>
> 
> Similar to #1, we need to allow test results to be attributed to a device 
> type. This would be done with a similar scheme, where results for a test 
> would optionally be saved as a directory looking like this:
> 
> dir/
>     test/
>         iPhone-7-actual.txt
>         iPhone-7-diff.txt
>         iPhone-7-expected.txt
>         iPhone-7-diff.html
>         iPhone-8-actual.txt
>         iPhone-8-diff.txt
>         iPhone-8-expected.txt
>         iPhone-8-diff.html
> 
> When reporting, results would be reported to as a new ¡®queue¡¯ of the form 
> '<queue>-<device>¡¯.
> 
> 3) Provide device specific tags in test expectations 
> <https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=192164 
> <https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=192164>>
> 
> We already have Debug/Release as well as version tags in our test 
> expectations. The addition here would be device-type tags, those tags would 
> look like this:
> 
> [ iPhone 7 ] dir/test.html [ Pass ]
> [ iPad ] dir/other-test.html [ Pass ]
> 
> These tags would allow for 2 features. The first is similar to existing tags, 
> allowing a certain test (or group of tests) to have different expectations or 
> to be skipped entirely on certain device types. The second feature allows for 
> tests and groups of tests to be run on multiple different devices in a single 
> instantiation of run-webkit-tests. For example,
> 
> [ iPhone 7, iPad ] dir/some-dir/ [ Pass ]
> 
> would indicate that every test in dir/some-dir/ will be run on BOTH iPhone 7 
> and iPad.
> 
> I would welcome anyone else¡¯s thoughts on this.
> 
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org <free online bettingmailto:webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org>
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev 
> <https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev>

_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Reply via email to