Summary: | REGRESSION(169799): [GTK] several layout tests on editing/ fail | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | WebKit | Reporter: | Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez> |
Component: | Tools / Tests | Assignee: | Nobody <webkit-unassigned> |
Status: | NEW --- | ||
Severity: | Normal | CC: | bugs-noreply, cgarcia, ltilve, svillar |
Priority: | P2 | ||
Version: | 528+ (Nightly build) | ||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
OS: | Unspecified |
Description
Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez
2014-06-12 10:01:25 PDT
I added this tests to the GTK TestExpectations on http://webkit.org/b/133811 I'm not sure this is a regression, are you sure our own expectation files are correct? The actual result I see for editing/deleting/delete-by-word-001 looks the same than cross-platform expected results. Note that the test does: if (navigator.userAgent.search(/\bMac OS X\b/) != -1) deleteWordModifiers = ["altKey"]; else deleteWordModifiers = ["ctrlKey"]; So, before r169799 we were using the alt key instead of the control key, which I think was wrong. (In reply to comment #2) > I'm not sure this is a regression, are you sure our own expectation files are correct? The actual result I see for editing/deleting/delete-by-word-001 looks the same than cross-platform expected results. Note that the test does: > > if (navigator.userAgent.search(/\bMac OS X\b/) != -1) > deleteWordModifiers = ["altKey"]; > else > deleteWordModifiers = ["ctrlKey"]; > > So, before r169799 we were using the alt key instead of the control key, which I think was wrong. It may be be that the test expectations for this tests before r169799 were wrong. Lorenzo commented that r169799 made a bunch of tests to pass, so maybe this ones that started to fail just need to be rebaselined. Compare the results: 169798 -> layout-test 16 failures 13 new passes 23 flakes 1 missing results http://build.webkit.org/builders/GTK%20Linux%2064-bit%20Release%20%28Tests%29/builds/744 169799 -> layout-test 20 failures 21 new passes 15 flakes 1 missing results http://build.webkit.org/builders/GTK%20Linux%2064-bit%20Release%20%28Tests%29/builds/745 (In reply to comment #3) > It may be be that the test expectations for this tests before r169799 were wrong. > > Lorenzo commented that r169799 made a bunch of tests to pass, so maybe this ones that started to fail just need to be rebaselined. Let's rebaseline them and remove as many platform specific results as possible. |