Bug 75940 – Add initial test_expectations.txt for EFL port

• Component: Tools / Tests
• Status: RESOLVED FIXED

[Gyuyoung Kim]

EFL port needs test_expectations.txt file to run LayoutTest using NRWT. This patch has only skipped test cases which are not supported by EFL DRT yet. But, I expect this file will be updated by EFL patches.

We can run LayoutTest using below commands.

Build :
    ./Tools/Scripts/build-webkit --efl --touch-events --touch-icon-loading --blob --device-orientation --fullscreen-api --geolocation --notifications --orientation-events --video --workers --shared-workers --request-animation-frame --page-visibility-api --cmakearg="-DSHARED_CORE=ON"

Run:
     Tools/Scripts/run-webkit-tests --platform=efl --release --no-launch-safari --results-directory layout-test-results --exit-after-n-failures 5000 --child-processes=N

[Gyuyoung Kim]

Created attachment 121799 [details]
Patch

[WebKit Review Bot]

Comment on attachment 121799 [details]
Patch

Clearing flags on attachment: 121799

Committed r104547: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/104547>

[WebKit Review Bot]

All reviewed patches have been landed.  Closing bug.

[Raphael Kubo da Costa (:rakuco)]

WONTFIX isn't the right keyword for those tests -- they fail either because the port currently has no support for those features or because some bug needs investigation, but definitely not because we do not want to ever fix those tests in the port.

[Gyuyoung Kim]

(In reply to comment #4)
> WONTFIX isn't the right keyword for those tests -- they fail either because the port currently has no support for those features or because some bug needs investigation, but definitely not because we do not want to ever fix those tests in the port.

Yes, I also think WONTFIX is not correct keyword. But, I couldn't find proper keyword to skip those test cases. If you have proper keyword, please fix them or let me know. But, if you also don't have proper keyword, let's use WONTFIX for now.

[Raphael Kubo da Costa (:rakuco)]

(In reply to comment #5)
> Yes, I also think WONTFIX is not correct keyword. But, I couldn't find proper keyword to skip those test cases. If you have proper keyword, please fix them or let me know.

The right keyword would be "BUGWKnnnnn", that is, when tests are failing, one opens a bug report about that and mentions it there. See, for example, the BUGWK entries in other ports' test_expectations as well as the bug numbers mentioned in their Skipped files.

[Gyuyoung Kim]

(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > Yes, I also think WONTFIX is not correct keyword. But, I couldn't find proper keyword to skip those test cases. If you have proper keyword, please fix them or let me know.
> 
> The right keyword would be "BUGWKnnnnn", that is, when tests are failing, one opens a bug report about that and mentions it there. See, for example, the BUGWK entries in other ports' test_expectations as well as the bug numbers mentioned in their Skipped files.

Ok, I find an example in chromium's test_expectations.txt. (Though I already saw the file, I missed this. I'm sorry)

// LayoutTestController::clearApplicationCacheForOrigin isn't implemented              
BUGWK SKIP : http/tests/appcache/origin-delete.html = FAIL

As you know, we don't file bugs for those tests yet. So, I think we can use "BUGWK SKIP :". How do you think ?