JSONTestResult needs to handle multiple results
Created attachment 90832 [details] Patch
Created attachment 90837 [details] Patch
So this is unfortunate. My first version of my patch had support like this... until I asked Ojan if "actual" would ever have multiple values and he said "no". :(
Comment on attachment 90837 [details] Patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=90837&action=review > Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/common/net/resultsjsonparser.py:54 > def _actual_as_expectation(self): Seems this should be actual_as_expectations now. > Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/common/net/resultsjsonparser.py:56 > + return map(test_expectations.TestExpectations.expectation_from_string, actual_results.split(' ')) This will end up putting None in the array if the mapping fails. Seems we should detect that case and warn. > Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/common/net/resultsjsonparser_unittest.py:61 > + "actual": "PASS TEXT", What does this even mean?
Comment on attachment 90837 [details] Patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=90837&action=review AFAIK, we don't ever put two results for actual in right now. We should though. We just don't right now. It's an easy change to summarize_results to start doing so, so I think supporting this is a good idea. >> Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/common/net/resultsjsonparser_unittest.py:61 >> + "actual": "PASS TEXT", > > What does this even mean? This means it passed during one one and failed text during another.
Adam must be seeing these results or he wouldn't have added the support, or?
So if we run new-run-webkit-tests foo.html --iterations 100, we'll get 100 values in 'actual'? Seems currently we'd never see "PASS" before a second result.
(In reply to comment #6) > Adam must be seeing these results or he wouldn't have added the support, or? Yes. I ran into this assert while testing the new hotness.
(In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #6) > > Adam must be seeing these results or he wouldn't have added the support, or? > > Yes. I ran into this assert while testing the new hotness. Oh crap. I was just wrong. Sorry for the misinformation. I didn't believe it, but I just went and reread the code and we do in fact do this already. Whoops!
patch LGTM.
Comment on attachment 90837 [details] Patch r- per my comments above. This just needs one round of cleanup.
Created attachment 91884 [details] Patch
Comment on attachment 91884 [details] Patch OK.
Comment on attachment 91884 [details] Patch Clearing flags on attachment: 91884 Committed r85459: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/85459>
All reviewed patches have been landed. Closing bug.