This test used to have an extra anonymous block for some reason I can't explain. The new generated content implementation seems to fix it.
Committed r146414: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/146414>
Rebaselined in r146441.
Don't we need rebaselines on Qt, GTK+, EFL, etc...?
Bug 104462 only touched the Mac and Chromium TestExpectations files. The Qt, GTK, and EFL TestExpectations files don't refer to this test, unless I looked at the wrong files. Did I miss anything?
(In reply to comment #4) > Bug 104462 only touched the Mac and Chromium TestExpectations files. The Qt, GTK, and EFL TestExpectations files don't refer to this test, unless I looked at the wrong files. I suspect that's because only Mac and Chromium ports' EWS bots run tests.
(In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > Bug 104462 only touched the Mac and Chromium TestExpectations files. The Qt, GTK, and EFL TestExpectations files don't refer to this test, unless I looked at the wrong files. > > I suspect that's because only Mac and Chromium ports' EWS bots run tests. Yup. I asked at the time (which was before the global TestExpectations file existed) and was told to only change ones for the EWS.
But it does seem like they all have .txt/.png results.
(In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > (In reply to comment #4) > > > Bug 104462 only touched the Mac and Chromium TestExpectations files. The Qt, GTK, and EFL TestExpectations files don't refer to this test, unless I looked at the wrong files. > > > > I suspect that's because only Mac and Chromium ports' EWS bots run tests. > > Yup. I asked at the time (which was before the global TestExpectations file existed) and was told to only change ones for the EWS. That's just insanely stupid. We're working around the fact EWS would cq- the patch. We need to improve the tool so that we don't have to do such a thing.
I am fine with this being reopened (hopefully with clarity added as to what someone who wants to fix should do). It's past midnight here and my brain is getting fuzzy enough that I'm not sure I would write the right thing myself.
(In reply to comment #9) > I am fine with this being reopened (hopefully with clarity added as to what someone who wants to fix should do). It's past midnight here and my brain is getting fuzzy enough that I'm not sure I would write the right thing myself. Sorry, I think closing the bug is the right thing to do for now. I just had to manually verify that EFL, GTK+, & Qt have respective -expected files, and they indeed do.