WebKit Bugzilla
New
Browse
Log In
×
Sign in with GitHub
or
Remember my login
Create Account
·
Forgot Password
Forgotten password account recovery
RESOLVED FIXED
111321
editing/execCommand/toggle-unlink.html needs to support different expectations
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111321
Summary
editing/execCommand/toggle-unlink.html needs to support different expectations
Claudio Saavedra
Reported
2013-03-04 07:12:16 PST
Once
bug 110487
is resolved, extending selection forward will yield different results depending on the platform. The test editing/execCommand/toggle-unlink.html currently doesn't support this, as the expected results are hardcoded into the script itself, redundantly.
Attachments
Patch
(5.95 KB, patch)
2013-03-04 07:15 PST
,
Claudio Saavedra
no flags
Details
Formatted Diff
Diff
Patch
(17.98 KB, patch)
2013-03-05 03:36 PST
,
Claudio Saavedra
no flags
Details
Formatted Diff
Diff
Show Obsolete
(1)
View All
Add attachment
proposed patch, testcase, etc.
Claudio Saavedra
Comment 1
2013-03-04 07:15:19 PST
Created
attachment 191235
[details]
Patch
Ryosuke Niwa
Comment 2
2013-03-04 15:06:50 PST
Comment on
attachment 191235
[details]
Patch The right fix is to make the behavior dependent on editing behavior and set editing behavior to mac in this test.
Darin Adler
Comment 3
2013-03-04 15:07:35 PST
Comment on
attachment 191235
[details]
Patch View in context:
https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=191235&action=review
> LayoutTests/ChangeLog:11 > + (testSingleToggle): Just output the result of running the test and > + let the test infrastructure check whether the expectations are met > + or not.
We should not, then, write out the word PASS when the test may have failed.
Claudio Saavedra
Comment 4
2013-03-04 23:59:35 PST
(In reply to
comment #2
)
> (From update of
attachment 191235
[details]
) > The right fix is to make the behavior dependent on editing behavior and set editing behavior to mac in this test.
Wouldn't setting the editing behavior to Mac in this test be counter-productive? That would mean that, in this particular test, only the codepaths related to Mac would be tested, in all platforms. If the feature breaks for other platforms this test wouldn't catch it. How can that be better than having separate expectations for platforms that behave differently?
Ryosuke Niwa
Comment 5
2013-03-05 00:01:08 PST
(In reply to
comment #4
)
> (In reply to
comment #2
) > > (From update of
attachment 191235
[details]
[details]) > > The right fix is to make the behavior dependent on editing behavior and set editing behavior to mac in this test. > > Wouldn't setting the editing behavior to Mac in this test be counter-productive? That would mean that, in this particular test, only the codepaths related to Mac would be tested, in all platforms. If the feature breaks for other platforms this test wouldn't catch it. How can that be better than having separate expectations for platforms that behave differently?
You'll then add a new version of the test that tests Windows behavior.
Claudio Saavedra
Comment 6
2013-03-05 00:10:11 PST
(In reply to
comment #5
)
> (In reply to
comment #4
) > > (In reply to
comment #2
) > > > (From update of
attachment 191235
[details]
[details] [details]) > > > The right fix is to make the behavior dependent on editing behavior and set editing behavior to mac in this test. > > > > Wouldn't setting the editing behavior to Mac in this test be counter-productive? That would mean that, in this particular test, only the codepaths related to Mac would be tested, in all platforms. If the feature breaks for other platforms this test wouldn't catch it. How can that be better than having separate expectations for platforms that behave differently? > > You'll then add a new version of the test that tests Windows behavior.
This seems absolutely unnecessary to me. This is what different expectations per platform are for. The test shouldn't be hardcoding the expected outcome in its code. There are -expected.txt files that are meant to be used for that.
Ryosuke Niwa
Comment 7
2013-03-05 00:23:48 PST
(In reply to
comment #6
)
> (In reply to
comment #5
) > > (In reply to
comment #4
) > > > > You'll then add a new version of the test that tests Windows behavior. > > This seems absolutely unnecessary to me. This is what different expectations per platform are for. The test shouldn't be hardcoding the expected outcome in its code. There are -expected.txt files that are meant to be used for that.
That's what editing behaviors are for. We used to have all these platform-specific behaviors and it was an absolute nightmare to debug them because you needed access to that platform/port.
Ryosuke Niwa
Comment 8
2013-03-05 00:25:53 PST
Please grep setEditingBehaviors in LayoutTests/editing and see how we're testing various editing features.
Claudio Saavedra
Comment 9
2013-03-05 00:30:51 PST
(In reply to
comment #8
)
> Please grep setEditingBehaviors in LayoutTests/editing and see how we're testing various editing features.
I see. Then I'll add the suffix -mac.html to this test, set edditing behavior to Mac as you suggested, and add a new test for windows when landing
bug 110487
. Does that sound OK for you?
Claudio Saavedra
Comment 10
2013-03-05 03:36:44 PST
Created
attachment 191456
[details]
Patch
Ryosuke Niwa
Comment 11
2013-03-05 10:23:47 PST
Comment on
attachment 191456
[details]
Patch View in context:
https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=191456&action=review
> LayoutTests/ChangeLog:14 > + * editing/execCommand/script-tests/toggle-unlink-mac.js: Renamed > + from > + LayoutTests/editing/execCommand/script-tests/toggle-unlink.js. > + Also set editing behaviour to Mac.
Why was this file not svn mv'ed?
Claudio Saavedra
Comment 12
2013-03-05 12:00:51 PST
(In reply to
comment #11
)
> (From update of
attachment 191456
[details]
) > View in context:
https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=191456&action=review
> > > LayoutTests/ChangeLog:14 > > + * editing/execCommand/script-tests/toggle-unlink-mac.js: Renamed > > + from > > + LayoutTests/editing/execCommand/script-tests/toggle-unlink.js. > > + Also set editing behaviour to Mac. > > Why was this file not svn mv'ed?
It is, to toggle-unlink-mac.js. The ChangeLog word wrapping might be a bit confusing here.
Build Bot
Comment 13
2013-03-05 13:38:18 PST
Comment on
attachment 191456
[details]
Patch
Attachment 191456
[details]
did not pass mac-ews (mac): Output:
http://webkit-commit-queue.appspot.com/results/17013074
New failing tests: editing/selection/selection-invalid-offset.html
Claudio Saavedra
Comment 14
2013-03-05 22:12:19 PST
(In reply to
comment #13
)
> (From update of
attachment 191456
[details]
) >
Attachment 191456
[details]
did not pass mac-ews (mac): > Output:
http://webkit-commit-queue.appspot.com/results/17013074
> > New failing tests: > editing/selection/selection-invalid-offset.html
Failing test is unrelated to the patch as far as I can tell.. is it safe to commit?
WebKit Review Bot
Comment 15
2013-03-05 22:45:16 PST
Comment on
attachment 191456
[details]
Patch Clearing flags on attachment: 191456 Committed
r144883
: <
http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/144883
>
WebKit Review Bot
Comment 16
2013-03-05 22:45:19 PST
All reviewed patches have been landed. Closing bug.
Note
You need to
log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Top of Page
Format For Printing
XML
Clone This Bug