RESOLVED FIXED81535
NRWT runs some tests that are skipped with -i command line option
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=81535
Summary NRWT runs some tests that are skipped with -i command line option
Alexey Proskuryakov
Reported 2012-03-19 12:09:01 PDT
I'm seeing some failures in http/tests even when running "run-webkit-tests -i http". Dirk discovered that this happens when an individual test is listed in text_expectations.txt. Clearly, a command line switch should have precedence over that.
Attachments
Patch (7.93 KB, patch)
2012-03-19 14:46 PDT, Dirk Pranke
no flags
reuse add_expectation() instead (12.76 KB, patch)
2012-03-19 15:16 PDT, Dirk Pranke
no flags
Dirk Pranke
Comment 1 2012-03-19 12:11:22 PDT
agreed. I was lazy when I implemented this the first time, and was hoping people wouldn't run into it ;).
Dirk Pranke
Comment 2 2012-03-19 14:46:32 PDT
Ojan Vafai
Comment 3 2012-03-19 14:51:46 PDT
Comment on attachment 132677 [details] Patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=132677&action=review > Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/layout_tests/models/test_expectations.py:872 > + for test in expectation_line.matching_tests: > + self._model._clear_expectations_for_test(test, expectation_line) > + self._model._test_to_expectation_line[test] = expectation_line > + self._model._add_test(test, expectation_line, overrides_allowed=True) Could you instead add a boolean to add_expectation_line? Something like overwrite_existing? I'm not a huge fan of duplicating accounting code like this. If the code changes in add_expectation_line, we'd almost certainly want it to change here to.
Dirk Pranke
Comment 4 2012-03-19 15:16:21 PDT
Created attachment 132682 [details] reuse add_expectation() instead
Dirk Pranke
Comment 5 2012-03-19 15:17:24 PDT
(In reply to comment #3) > (From update of attachment 132677 [details]) > View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=132677&action=review > > > Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/layout_tests/models/test_expectations.py:872 > > + for test in expectation_line.matching_tests: > > + self._model._clear_expectations_for_test(test, expectation_line) > > + self._model._test_to_expectation_line[test] = expectation_line > > + self._model._add_test(test, expectation_line, overrides_allowed=True) > > Could you instead add a boolean to add_expectation_line? Something like overwrite_existing? I'm not a huge fan of duplicating accounting code like this. If the code changes in add_expectation_line, we'd almost certainly want it to change here to. Yeah, I had tried that initially and hadn't been happy with how it looked. I've reworked it again with some different variable names and think this iteration is okay. Thanks for the review!
Dirk Pranke
Comment 6 2012-03-19 15:43:09 PDT
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.