RESOLVED FIXED Bug 75940
Add initial test_expectations.txt for EFL port 
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=75940
Summary Add initial test_expectations.txt for EFL port
Gyuyoung Kim
Reported 2012-01-09 23:08:16 PST
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
Attachments
Patch (16.01 KB, patch)
2012-01-09 23:14 PST, Gyuyoung Kim 		no flags
DetailsFormatted DiffDiff
View All Add attachment proposed patch, testcase, etc.
Gyuyoung Kim
Comment 1 2012-01-09 23:14:08 PST
Created attachment 121799 [details] Patch
WebKit Review Bot
Comment 2 2012-01-10 03:20:36 PST
Comment on attachment 121799 [details] Patch Clearing flags on attachment: 121799 Committed r104547: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/104547>
WebKit Review Bot
Comment 3 2012-01-10 03:20:44 PST
All reviewed patches have been landed. Closing bug.
Raphael Kubo da Costa (:rakuco)
Comment 4 2012-01-10 05:19:36 PST
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
Comment 5 2012-01-10 16:32:40 PST
(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)
Comment 6 2012-01-10 16:53:08 PST
(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
Comment 7 2012-01-10 17:08:35 PST
(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 ?
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.