Re: Size for reftests

On 23/01/14 17:38, Dirk Pranke wrote:

> It would be unfortunate if we had to figure out a way to use two different
> sized windows, and I would expect running tests designed for a 600x600
> screen to occasionally fail on an 800x600 screen. I would also be surprised
> if 600x600 really made things much faster, but I am often surprised by
> things ...

So, the main argument for 600x600 seems to be that if you are running on 
a mobile device with a 768x1024 screen and can't force it into landscape 
mode, a reftest designed for 600x600 will be fine, but an 800x600 one 
will break.

I don't really know how important that particular form factor is. 
Obviously it is something that Mozilla care about right now, but for all 
I know in a few years everyone will have far more (CSS) pixels than 
that. Or people will be trying to run reftests on their watch with far 
fewer pixels.

I should also say that, for us, the plan is to keep web-platform-tests 
isolated from our legacy tests so if we need to use a different viewport 
size in the two cases that is possible. But if I add a whole load of 
tests that we can't (eventually) run on mobile then it will probably 
make my colleagues grumpy…

> One could argue that reftests should be mostly viewport-size-independent
> (within reason), and that we should change or fix ones that aren't. It
> would not surprise me that there are some tests that *have* to be
> size-dependent, but I don't know of any offhand. I also would not be
> surprised if guaranteeing size independence often introduced unnecessary
> complexity into a test as well ...

Yes, I think we need to pick a size and go with it here.

Received on Thursday, 23 January 2014 19:25:26 UTC