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? ~fantasaiReceived on Saturday, 9 April 2016 14:33:15 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 20 January 2023 19:58:21 UTC