85649 2012-05-04 12:16:27 -0700 editing tests tend to be slow, should be marked as SLOW accordingly in test_expectations 2012-07-17 12:10:32 -0700 1 1 1 Unclassified WebKit Tools / Tests 528+ (Nightly build) Unspecified Unspecified RESOLVED FIXED P2 Normal --- 1 dpranke webkit-unassigned rniwa tony oldest_to_newest 616507 0 dpranke 2012-05-04 12:16:27 -0700 see bug 83076 for examples and some justification. 671417 1 tony 2012-07-17 11:13:48 -0700 Reverted in http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/122859. It's unfortunate that this has been in TestExpectations 2 months after bug 83076 was resolved. It looks like all the tests with BUGWK83076 should be removed too. I'll do that after verifying on the flakiness dashboard. https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=83076#c20 : "...tests we mark as timeout/slow now will be forgotten." 671464 2 dpranke 2012-07-17 11:55:11 -0700 I didn't mark the editing tests as slow because of the hardware flakiness, I did it because rniwa told me they should be considered slow. (see https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=83076#c15 ). Is that no longer the case? 671466 3 rniwa 2012-07-17 12:01:29 -0700 (In reply to comment #2) > I didn't mark the editing tests as slow because of the hardware flakiness, I did it because rniwa told me they should be considered slow. (see https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=83076#c15 ). Is that no longer the case? It still is the case but if tests are passing fast enough, then we might as well remove SLOW. 671468 4 tony 2012-07-17 12:01:41 -0700 (In reply to comment #2) > I didn't mark the editing tests as slow because of the hardware flakiness, I did it because rniwa told me they should be considered slow. (see https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=83076#c15 ). Is that no longer the case? They are integration tests (many LayoutTests are), but saying they are all slow is an over generalization. Look at the end of the log file where we list the times of the slow tests: http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.webkit/builders/Webkit%20Win7/builds/18689/steps/webkit_tests/logs/stdio 671474 5 tony 2012-07-17 12:02:36 -0700 We should just mark specific tests that are slow as SLOW. 671477 6 rniwa 2012-07-17 12:04:36 -0700 (In reply to comment #5) > We should just mark specific tests that are slow as SLOW. I don't think the maintenance cost is worth the benefit. It's a pure noyance as far as I'm concerned. Alternatively, we should just increase the default timeout. 671481 7 dpranke 2012-07-17 12:06:48 -0700 I'll let you two decide what you want to do. I don't have a dog in this fight :). 671486 8 rniwa 2012-07-17 12:10:32 -0700 I'm not interested in discussing this matter either. If tests are fast now, or if something is willing to fix, then that's their problem.