118676 2013-07-15 09:46:31 -0700 Web Inspector: Master bug for moving to the new inspector on all ports 2014-01-11 18:27:31 -0800 1 1 1 Unclassified WebKit Web Inspector 528+ (Nightly build) All All RESOLVED FIXED InRadar P3 Normal --- 119559 120098 120647 118677 118678 118715 118959 119252 120609 120657 122294 122295 122647 1 rtakacs webkit-unassigned afonso.costa bburg graouts gustavo joepeck loki m.morais noam rtakacs seokju timothy webkit-bug-importer oldest_to_newest 908434 0 rtakacs 2013-07-15 09:46:31 -0700 As you know we should use the Safari inspector UI (Source/WebInspectorUI) inspead of the old one (Source/WebCore/inspector/front-end). In this place all ports can track the bugs that related to the Safari inspector UI integration. 908435 1 webkit-bug-importer 2013-07-15 09:47:12 -0700 <rdar://problem/14444151> 908754 2 seokju 2013-07-16 02:12:58 -0700 I wonder whether 'New Web Inspector' can pass LayoutTest related to Inspector or not. 908935 3 timothy 2013-07-16 10:04:03 -0700 (In reply to comment #2) > I wonder whether 'New Web Inspector' can pass LayoutTest related to Inspector or not. It can't. We plan to make a new test harness soon. 935487 4 m.morais 2013-10-02 12:17:04 -0700 Hello, now that efl/gtk/mac/win use the new inspector, I would like to start removing the old code (qt was the last port with the old inspector, and is being removed from trunk), is that ok for you guys? 935510 5 timothy 2013-10-02 13:12:49 -0700 Yes! The only question about removing the old is test coverage. It would be nice to convert some of the old Inspector UI tests over to protocol tests. (We don't plan to do any UI testing of the new Inspector but we want to test the protocol.) 935552 6 m.morais 2013-10-02 14:35:20 -0700 (In reply to comment #5) > Yes! The only question about removing the old is test coverage. It would be nice to convert some of the old Inspector UI tests over to protocol tests. (We don't plan to do any UI testing of the new Inspector but we want to test the protocol.) I see... have you decided which tests should be converted? How can we proceed? Maybe creating separated bugs, one to remove the old front end and another to convert these tests and remove the rest? Suggestions? 935969 7 m.morais 2013-10-03 14:10:10 -0700 Hi again, I created the bugs 122294 and 122295, one to remove the old front-end and another to check which UI tests can be converted. I will remove the old front end first and leave the tests untouched. I don't know if you already thought about which tests should be converted, if you don't maybe I can take a look at this later, I think that would be a good opportunity to me to learn about this. Is that ok for you? 935984 8 joepeck 2013-10-03 14:36:32 -0700 (In reply to comment #7) > Hi again, I created the bugs 122294 and 122295, one to remove the old front-end and another to check which UI tests can be converted. > > I will remove the old front end first and leave the tests untouched. If you remove the old frontend you will need to skip all of the LayoutTests/inspector and LayoutTests/http/tests/inspector tests on all platforms, because they rely on running code inside the old frontend. > I don't know if you already thought about which tests should be converted, if you don't maybe I can take a look at this later, I think that would be a good opportunity to me to learn about this. > > Is that ok for you? I think this is fine. It would be nice to have a strategy for converting over tests. We haven't really had much time to think about this. Ideally we would have at least one test for each protocol method, then perhaps extra tests for cases involving multiple back and forths between a frontend and backend. In the process of writing the new tests we can remove old tests that tested the same protocol methods. You mention you are interested, it would be nice to talk a small piece of the protocol, maybe the Storage domain, and write new tests for that. I think it would be a nice small task, and we can see from there how easy / difficult it would be to convert the rest. I started working on the Debugger domain. See LayoutTests/inspector-protocol/debugger as an example on how to structure and write the tests. 936195 9 m.morais 2013-10-04 07:41:04 -0700 > If you remove the old frontend you will need to skip all of the LayoutTests/inspector and LayoutTests/http/tests/inspector tests on all platforms, because they rely on running code inside the old frontend. > Yes, I'll do this. > I think this is fine. It would be nice to have a strategy for converting over tests. We haven't really had much time to think about this. > > Ideally we would have at least one test for each protocol method, then perhaps extra tests for cases involving multiple back and forths between a frontend and backend. > > In the process of writing the new tests we can remove old tests that tested the same protocol methods. You mention you are interested, it would be nice to talk a small piece of the protocol, maybe the Storage domain, and write new tests for that. I think it would be a nice small task, and we can see from there how easy / difficult it would be to convert the rest. > > I started working on the Debugger domain. See LayoutTests/inspector-protocol/debugger as an example on how to structure and write the tests. Nice, I'll take a look at this. Like I said it is a good opportunity to learn and I want to help. :) 966865 10 bburg 2014-01-11 18:27:31 -0800 Since this bug was created, I believe all ports have moved to the new inspector or have dropped out of trunk. There are still follow-up bugs for converting skipped inspector UI tests into inspector protocol tests. But, this master bug doesn't seem to 'block' anything now.