Summary: | new-run-webkit-tests: TEXT failures are getting reported as MISSING | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | WebKit | Reporter: | Dirk Pranke <dpranke> |
Component: | Text | Assignee: | Nobody <webkit-unassigned> |
Status: | NEW --- | ||
Severity: | Normal | CC: | abarth, aroben, eric, kbr, tony |
Priority: | P2 | Keywords: | NRWT |
Version: | 528+ (Nightly build) | ||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
OS: | Unspecified | ||
Bug Depends on: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 64491 |
Description
Dirk Pranke
2011-06-21 16:23:20 PDT
We should stop outputting MISSING entirely. Only output the more specific type of MISSING: MISSING_IMAGE, MISSING_TEXT, MISSING_IMAGE+TEXT. In the text_expectations.txt file we accept MISSING (syntactic sugar for the union of all three missing cases) or any of the above. (In reply to comment #1) > We should stop outputting MISSING entirely. Only output the more specific type of MISSING: > MISSING_IMAGE, MISSING_TEXT, MISSING_IMAGE+TEXT. > > In the text_expectations.txt file we accept MISSING (syntactic sugar for the union of all three missing cases) or any of the above. Hm. This is a pretty good suggestion (at least as good as any of the others I made), but I don't think calling MISSING syntactic sugar is quite right. This is an example of the more general problem that we don't have a 1:1 mapping between possible combinations of failures and expectation types (and I don't know that we should). For example, how would we differentiate "text failure + missing image" from "text passed + missing image"? Presumably at least one of them is MISSING_IMAGE; what's the other? (In reply to comment #2) > For example, how would we differentiate "text failure + missing image" from "text passed + missing image"? Presumably at least one of them is MISSING_IMAGE; what's the other? These cases are rare enough that I'm comfortable with just calling both of those MISSING_IMAGE. I'm unclear as to if this is still an issue or what needs to be done here? If it "blocks" conversion of the bots, it should be related to bug 34984. If it's a user polish issue, it should relate to bug 64491. If it's a chromium-only issue it can stay as-is. I think we should probably distinguish MISSING_IMAGE from MISSING_TEXT somehow in the output. I'm not sure if we need to introduce new keywords, or not. |