The best website for sports football betting_william hill online casino free spins_free login bwin interactive entertainment ag

Wed, 12 Dec 2018 23:31:43 -0800

> On Dec 12, 2018, at 2:20 PM, Jonathan Bedard <> wrote:
>> On Dec 12, 2018, at 11:16 AM, Maciej Stachowiak < 
>> <>> wrote:
>>> On Dec 12, 2018, at 10:07 AM, Jonathan Bedard < 
>>> <>> wrote:
>>> Ryosuke and I discussed this on Monday, and in passing, Ryosuke mentioned 
>>> that he personally finds something like this:
>>>     <test-name>.html
>>>     <test-name>-expected.txt
>>>     <test-name>-expected-<device-type>.txt
>>> more clear than the directory method I proposed. After implementing the 
>>> above approach in the patch uploaded to 
>>> < 
>>> <>>, I¡¯m inclined to agree. 
>>> Ryosuke¡¯s approach achieves everything we need for device-type specific 
>>> expected results.
>>> This still doesn¡¯t solve disagreements about how to organize test results 
>>> when a single test is run on multiple device types, but it seems like a 
>>> step in the right direction.
>> In my opinion, we should think about what kind of device and platform 
>> differences we expect, and see if it can be organized into a single model. 
>> It strikes me as odd to have two totally different ways to organize variant 
>> results. And we don¡¯t necessarily need to consider different platforms to be 
>> only targets with different binaries.
> I think that we have 4 major reasons for differing expected results on 
> different platforms:
>       1) Missing feature in the test harness
>       2) Feature differentiation
>       3) Bug (or quirk) from the device-type/platform/OS
>       4) Tests sensitive to screen size and graphics support (deep color, for 
> example)
> #1 and #3 are well covered under our current scheme, and I haven¡¯t seen these 
> types of differences connected to device type. #2 is usually connected to 
> platform, occasionally OS version and in a few notable cases, iPad vs iPhone. 
> #4 is pretty much exclusively tied to device type and is a difference that we 
> have mostly ignored.
>> One issue with these flat device names is that they have no hierarchy. It 
>> was hard for me to tell if your iPhone 7 vs iPhone 8 example of a difference 
>> was real or just imaginary, but I¡¯d expect more tests to be different for 
>> iPhone vs iPad than different for iPhone 7 vs iPhone 8, so it would be nice 
>> to have a hierarchy for iPhone as a device class with different types of 
>> iPhones under it.
> The iPhone 7 vs iPhone 8 difference was contrived, but even now we have a set 
> of tests which must be run on an iPhone 7 instead of an iPhone SE because 
> iPhone 7 supports deep color. So there are definitely circumstances where 
> iPhones might have different expected results from other iPhones.
> In this proposal, I haven¡¯t detailed the specifics of parsing device types 
> because that code actually already exists for creating simulated devices. At 
> the moment, device types aren¡¯t implemented as a hierarchy, they¡¯re 
> implemented by creating objects which use an ¡°is a¡± comparison. A log from a 
> simulator test run shows this pretty well 
> <
> <>>.
> Creating devices for iPhone SE running iOS 12
> 11:52:45.780 92192 Creating device 'Managed 0', of type iPhone SE running iOS 
> 12
> Creating devices for iPhone 7 running iOS 12
> 12:21:30.931 92192 Creating device 'Managed 0', of type iPhone 7 running iOS 
> 12
> Creating devices for iPad running iOS 12
> 12:21:49.425 92192 Creating device 'Managed 0', of type iPad (6th generation) 
> running iOS 12
> While I haven¡¯t given an example of a generic iPhone expected result, all the 
> examples of iPad expected results have actually been that of a generic iPad, 
> ¡®iPad (6th generation)¡¯ would we an example of a non-generic iPad. iPhones 
> operate under a similar system, just as an ¡®iPad (6th generation)¡¯ uses 
> generic iPad expectations, so too would an ¡®iPhone 7¡¯ use generic iPhone 
> expectations, unless a more specific expected result was available. 

I¡¯m thinking of this from the perspective of someone navigating the test 
directory manually, rather than the perspective of the bots. Tools can clearly 
deal with any layout we come up with, so it should be optimized first for human 

>> But of course, while a device hierarchy could be fit under a flat notion of 
>> OS, the trick is how to fit it with a sequence of OS versions. Using 
>> directories for OS versions but filename variations for devices classes 
>> seems weird to me, and maybe almost backwards. I¡¯d expect many device class 
>> differences to be permanent (iPhone vs iPad for example), while OS version 
>> differences may be transitory, in that they are often quirks of an older OS 
>> that will not matter once we no longer support that OS.
>> I think it¡¯s worth thinking through all the variations that would be needed 
>> for a few real tests (ideally ones that already vary by OS version but which 
>> would also vary by device type) and make a single model that makes sense.
> I agree with the assessment of device types difference being more permanent 
> while OS version difference are transitory. That¡¯s why we¡¯ve used the 
> hierarchy for OS version, it allows us to collect transitory expectations 
> together in a few directories. I don¡¯t think we want to pile on our existing 
> hierarchy for iOS, this is what it looks like:

>       platform/ios-simulator-12-wk2
>       platform/iso-simulator-12
>       platform/ios-simulator-wk2
>       platform/ios-simulator
>       platform/ios-12
>       platform/ios-wk2
>       platform/ios
>       platform/wk2

OS versions are transitory, but OSes likely are not. Ditto for WebKit models 
(legacy vs modern). And simulator vs non-simulator

And I guess this highlights another dimension of variation, modern webkit vs. 
legacy webkit. Even with all these explanations, I don¡¯t get why  we would 
handle variation by platform, OS version and webkit variant one way, and device 
type a totally different way. It just seems random.

I guess ¡°delete whole directory at once¡± is one concrete argument, but it 
doesn¡¯t really align with the difference here. We might delete ¡°ios-12¡±, but we 
are unlikely to delete ¡°ios¡± results any time soon.

We¡¯re unlikely to delete ¡°ipad¡± or ¡°iphone¡± results any time soon, but if we 
had ¡°iphone-SE¡± results then they would age out eventually. Modern WebKit vs 
Legacy WebKit is a difference likely to persist for a while, but if it was 
removed, we¡¯d want to delete the Legacy WebKit results (which are not in a 
special directory) rather than the Modern WebKit results (which are).

> I also don¡¯t think that device type really fits the hierarchy model. 
> Conceptually, device type is a parallel idea to OS version. In most cases, we 
> would expect the results for a given iPad test to be the same for both iOS 
> Simulator and iOS Device across all versions. It seems unwise to force the 
> concept of device type and OS version into the same idiom.

Device types clearly have their own hierarchy, which doesn¡¯t align with the OS 
version inheritance we¡¯ve created, or with the side features like ¡°simulator¡± 
or ¡°wk2¡± that we¡¯ve appended.

>> Maybe we should just use filename variations for everything, since that 
>> naturally expresses independent variation along multiple dimensions, while 
>> directories can only represent a single hierarchy. The trick then would be 
>> figuring out the priority order. If I have <test-name>-expected-ios-ipad.txt 
>> and <test-name>-expected-ios12.txt, then which is the right one to use on an 
>> iOS 12 iPad? Maybe we could have a convention to make ambiguous variation 
>> like this an error, or else decide whether OS version or device should take 
>> priority.
> I think appending OS version to expected results will greatly complicate 
> gardening test results. It¡¯s quite useful to be able to move around entire 
> directories which correspond to OS version. Since OS version is always tied 
> to platform,  I think both of these need to remain directories as they are 
> now.

Explain to me why ios, ios-12, ios-simulator and ios-wk2 are all directories 
that often need to be moved, but ios-ipad would not be.  I¡¯m not seeing the 
category difference here. We have a number of conditions that can affect test 
results, I don¡¯t see how device is categorically different from the various 
other conditions.


webkit-dev mailing list
free online betting

Reply via email to