WebKit Bugzilla
New
Browse
Search+
Log In
×
Sign in with GitHub
or
Remember my login
Create Account
·
Forgot Password
Forgotten password account recovery
NEW
182580
Gigacage DumpRenderTree and WebKitTestRunner
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=182580
Summary
Gigacage DumpRenderTree and WebKitTestRunner
JF Bastien
Reported
2018-02-07 13:43:23 PST
As Saam suggested in #182457, this will give us better test coverage.
Attachments
patch
(2.97 KB, patch)
2018-02-07 13:46 PST
,
JF Bastien
ap
: review-
ap
: commit-queue-
Details
Formatted Diff
Diff
View All
Add attachment
proposed patch, testcase, etc.
Radar WebKit Bug Importer
Comment 1
2018-02-07 13:45:06 PST
<
rdar://problem/37325535
>
JF Bastien
Comment 2
2018-02-07 13:46:27 PST
Created
attachment 333310
[details]
patch
EWS Watchlist
Comment 3
2018-02-07 13:47:49 PST
Attachment 333310
[details]
did not pass style-queue: ERROR: Source/bmalloc/bmalloc/ProcessCheck.mm:38: Extra space between ^ and block definition. [whitespace/brackets] [4] Total errors found: 1 in 2 files If any of these errors are false positives, please file a bug against check-webkit-style.
Saam Barati
Comment 4
2018-02-07 15:06:18 PST
Comment on
attachment 333310
[details]
patch View in context:
https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=333310&action=review
> Source/bmalloc/bmalloc/ProcessCheck.mm:53 > + || [processName hasPrefix:@"WebKitTestRunner"];
I don't think this is exactly what we should do. I think the goal should be for the testing environment to be a lot like the environment it's enabled in (e.g, when running the browser). Therefore, this should probably only be enabled in the "WebKitTestRunner WebContent" process.
JF Bastien
Comment 5
2018-02-07 15:21:00 PST
(In reply to Saam Barati from
comment #4
)
> Comment on
attachment 333310
[details]
> patch > > View in context: >
https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=333310&action=review
> > > Source/bmalloc/bmalloc/ProcessCheck.mm:53 > > + || [processName hasPrefix:@"WebKitTestRunner"]; > > I don't think this is exactly what we should do. I think the goal should be > for the testing environment to be a lot like the environment it's enabled in > (e.g, when running the browser). Therefore, this should probably only be > enabled in the > "WebKitTestRunner WebContent" process.
Where does this name come from? Grepping around find a script that deals with "WebKitTestRunner Web Content" (note the space), but I can't find how we create it.
Saam Barati
Comment 6
2018-02-07 15:25:24 PST
(In reply to JF Bastien from
comment #5
)
> (In reply to Saam Barati from
comment #4
) > > Comment on
attachment 333310
[details]
> > patch > > > > View in context: > >
https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=333310&action=review
> > > > > Source/bmalloc/bmalloc/ProcessCheck.mm:53 > > > + || [processName hasPrefix:@"WebKitTestRunner"]; > > > > I don't think this is exactly what we should do. I think the goal should be > > for the testing environment to be a lot like the environment it's enabled in > > (e.g, when running the browser). Therefore, this should probably only be > > enabled in the > > "WebKitTestRunner WebContent" process. > > Where does this name come from? Grepping around find a script that deals > with "WebKitTestRunner Web Content" (note the space), but I can't find how > we create it.
No idea where it comes from.
Alexey Proskuryakov
Comment 7
2018-02-07 20:55:25 PST
That’s not the process name, it is only the name that LaunchServices uses for display purposes. The process name remains com.apple.webkit.WebContent. I think that special casing the name is the wrong approach anyway. This should be an explicit opt-in that the client can elect to enable.
JF Bastien
Comment 8
2018-02-07 20:58:16 PST
(In reply to Alexey Proskuryakov from
comment #7
)
> That’s not the process name, it is only the name that LaunchServices uses > for display purposes. The process name remains com.apple.webkit.WebContent. > > I think that special casing the name is the wrong approach anyway.
For this specific change (DUmpRenderTree and WebKitTestRunner), or in general? A follow-up will make this an entitlement instead, but for now this general approach was decided to be the right approach.
> This should be an explicit opt-in that the client can elect to enable.
Alexey Proskuryakov
Comment 9
2018-02-07 23:20:34 PST
I don't know what the arguments were originally, but the fact that you now ran into difficulties demonstrates that it may have not been the right decision.
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