Re: Unifying testsuite policy and getting rid of CSS exceptions

On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 1:00 AM James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk> wrote:

> On 16/09/17 04:51, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 6:42 PM Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Given that there are costs associated with moving tests around, I’m
> >> slightly in favor of leaving current tests where they are.
> >>
> >
> > Can you elaborate a bit on this? I don't disagree that there is *some*
> > cost, but at least from my vantage point it seems quite acceptable. When
> > tests are renamed we deal with it in the Chromium import process, and
> > doesn't require us to treat all of the renamed files as if they were new.
> > If there are other bits of tooling that don't handle renames well, I
> > wouldn't mind investing a bit of time fixing that.
>
> Our import process doesn't (currently) deal with moving tests well. We
> can and should improve that. However a one-time patch moving lots of
> paths is something that we could deal with manually, so that shouldn't
> be a blocker to choosing a better organisation.
>

I see. Quinten, Robert, can you share something about how the rename
detection for our import works, does it only handle change-free renames, or
is there a similarity threshold of sorts?

In any case, it's good to hear that simple directory renames aren't an
issue for Gecko.

Would directory renaming create trouble for anyone else?