Re: Towards a better testsuite: Build System

On 04/09/2016 07:42 AM, Ms2ger wrote:
> On Apr 8, 2016 19:01, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net <mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>> wrote:
>> However, individual vendors may need scripts to convert the
>> test-reference linkages into their preferred format E.g.
>> for Mozilla, we do need to generate reftest manifest files,
>> which are currently constructed by the build system. But
>> that can be done with a lighter-weight system that just
>> generates manifests in place per directory.
>
> We don't, actually. We already run reftests from wpt using
> its manifest format; there's no reason to use reftest.list.

Right, but the CSSWG tests don't have any manifest; we use
<link> tags intead. So we'd need to generate some kind of
manifest, whether it's in WPT format or reftest.list format.

>> (As for adopting a "filename convention" for mapping the
>> tests and references... No. There are thousands of CSS tests
>> that use the same reference file. Whoever wants a "filename
>> convention" can make 1000 copies of each common reference if
>> they want, but I refuse to support such nonsense in the CSSWG
>> repository.)
>
> Where did anybody suggest that? Wpt uses a filename convention
> to mark manual tests, but not for reftests.

Well, apparently some people think this is a good idea:
   https://trac.webkit.org/wiki/Writing%20Reftests

p.s. why does your address book list public-css-testsuite as Mike Smith?

~fantasai

Received on Saturday, 9 April 2016 14:33:15 UTC