| Summary: | Move PrettyPatch related code to prettypatch.py | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | WebKit | Reporter: | Dániel Bátyai <dbatyai.u-szeged> | ||||||||||
| Component: | WebKit Misc. | Assignee: | Nobody <webkit-unassigned> | ||||||||||
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||||||||||||
| Severity: | Normal | CC: | commit-queue, glenn, ossy, rniwa | ||||||||||
| Priority: | P2 | ||||||||||||
| Version: | 528+ (Nightly build) | ||||||||||||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||||||||||||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||||||||||||
| Bug Depends on: | 124974 | ||||||||||||
| Bug Blocks: | |||||||||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||||||
|
Description
Dániel Bátyai
2013-11-27 06:42:32 PST
Created attachment 217947 [details]
Proposed patch
Comment on attachment 217947 [details] Proposed patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=217947&action=review > Tools/ChangeLog:7 > + Please explain why we're making this change. r- due to the lack of descriptions.
> Please explain why we're making this change. r- due to the lack of descriptions.
Sorry for not describing the change more clearly. The point of it was to unify the usage of prettypatch, for example tool/steps/confirmdiff.py already used it like this. Plus there was a FIXME in base.py regarding prettypatch path, which stated that prettypatch.py already had this information, so this code seems to have a better place in PrettyPatch, than in Port.
Please mention that in the change log. Created attachment 217992 [details]
Proposed patch
Comment on attachment 217992 [details] Proposed patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=217992&action=review > Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/layout_tests/controllers/test_result_writer.py:200 > + if self._port._pretty_patch.pretty_patch_available(): > + pretty_patch = self._port._pretty_patch.pretty_patch_text(diff_filename) We shouldn't be accessing port object's "private" variables like this. > We shouldn't be accessing port object's "private" variables like this.
Which one would be more preferable: if I change it to public, or if I write a getter function for prettypatch?
(In reply to comment #7) > > We shouldn't be accessing port object's "private" variables like this. > > Which one would be more preferable: if I change it to public, or if I write a getter function for prettypatch? Either. Created attachment 217997 [details]
Proposed patch
Comment on attachment 217997 [details] Proposed patch Clearing flags on attachment: 217997 Committed r159839: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/159839> All reviewed patches have been landed. Closing bug. Re-opened since this is blocked by bug 124974 It was rolled out by http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/159847, because it broke run-webkit-tests. After this change run-webkit-tests didn't generate pretty diffs anymore. Could you check and fix it? Created attachment 218501 [details]
Proposed patch
run-webkit-tests should correctly generate pretty diffs now
Comment on attachment 218501 [details] Proposed patch Clearing flags on attachment: 218501 Committed r160271: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/160271> All reviewed patches have been landed. Closing bug. |