WebKit deps roll 47797:47804

WebKit deps roll 47797:47804

TBR=ojan
BUG=20376, 20377
TEST=none


Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=24585

[ojan, 2009-08-27 17:31:30]

http://codereview.chromium.org/173555/diff/1/2
File webkit/tools/layout_tests/test_expectations.txt (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/173555/diff/1/2#newcode745
Line 745: //BUG13907 WIN : LayoutTests/media/video-src-remove.html = FAIL
Why leave this in commented out instead of just removing it?

[ojan, 2009-08-27 18:43:04]

I see what you're saying. I think the best solution here is to just have one
line with two bugs listed. This will also help whoever is going to fix the
test as they'll be able to easily see all the reason's it's failing.

BUG20376 BUG13907 WIN : LayoutTests/media/video-src-remove.html = TIMEOUT
FAIL

That OK?

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> wrote:

> Yes, but it's not flaky now.  If you'd like, I can move the commented out
> one down to right after the new version of it.  I think what'd be even
> better is if multiple entries for one layout test didn't cause the script to
> parse.  Or it'd at least be nice if we could list 2 bugs for one test.
> The commented out one is NOT dead....it's another type of failure that is
> currently overshadowed by the new type of failure.
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:31 AM, <ojan@chromium.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://codereview.chromium.org/173555/diff/1/2
>>>> File webkit/tools/layout_tests/test_expectations.txt (right):
>>>>
>>>> http://codereview.chromium.org/173555/diff/1/2#newcode745
>>>> Line 745: //BUG13907 WIN : LayoutTests/media/video-src-remove.html =
>>>> FAIL
>>>> Why leave this in commented out instead of just removing it?
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, there's 2 problems with that test.  1) it's flaky and 2) it's
>>> failing.  Someone fixing 2 doesn't necessarily fix 1.  So they'll probably
>>> want to add it back into that list when they're finished.  It's also
>>> documentation.  I don't really see any downside.
>>>
>>
>> We have a process for dealing with flaky tests. If it passes sometimes and
>> fails sometimes, mark it PASS FAIL. Why is this case an exception? I see two
>> downsides:
>>
>>    1. Now when it fails, it will turn the tree red.
>>    2. If we make a practice of leaving in commented out tests this file
>>    becomes even more bloated than it is now.
>>
>>
>

[dglazkov, 2009-08-27 20:17:28]

BTW, about to filter out all LayoutTests/media out for now, skipping
them. We can't have codecs for most of these tests, so we (Alpha and
myself) decided it's easier to skip them for now. Permanent solution
coming in Q4.

:DG<

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Ojan Vafai<ojan@chromium.org> wrote:
> I see what you're saying. I think the best solution here is to just have =
one
> line with two bugs listed. This will also help whoever is going to fix th=
e
> test as they'll be able to easily see all the reason's it's failing.
> BUG20376=A0BUG13907=A0WIN : LayoutTests/media/video-src-remove.html =3D T=
IMEOUT
> FAIL
> That OK?
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> wrot=
e:
>>
>> Yes, but it's not flaky now. =A0If you'd like, I can move the commented =
out
>> one down to right after the new version of it. =A0I think what'd be even
>> better is if multiple entries for one layout test didn't cause the scrip=
t to
>> parse. =A0Or it'd at least be nice if we could list 2 bugs for one test.
>> The commented out one is NOT dead....it's another type of failure that i=
s
>> currently overshadowed by the new type of failure.
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:31 AM, <ojan@chromium.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://codereview.chromium.org/173555/diff/1/2
>>>>> File webkit/tools/layout_tests/test_expectations.txt (right):
>>>>>
>>>>> http://codereview.chromium.org/173555/diff/1/2#newcode745
>>>>> Line 745: //BUG13907 WIN : LayoutTests/media/video-src-remove.html =
=3D
>>>>> FAIL
>>>>> Why leave this in commented out instead of just removing it?
>>>>
>>>> Well, there's 2 problems with that test. =A01) it's flaky and 2) it's
>>>> failing. =A0Someone fixing 2 doesn't necessarily fix 1. =A0So they'll =
probably
>>>> want to add it back into that list when they're finished. =A0It's also
>>>> documentation. =A0I don't really see any downside.
>>>
>>> We have a process for dealing with flaky tests. If it passes sometimes
>>> and fails sometimes, mark it PASS FAIL. Why is this case an exception? =
I see
>>> two downsides:
>>>
>>> Now when it fails, it will turn the tree red.
>>> If we make a practice of leaving in commented out tests this file becom=
es
>>> even more bloated than it is now.
>
>

[jorlow, 2009-08-27 22:57:09]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:31 AM, <ojan@chromium.org> wrote:

>
> http://codereview.chromium.org/173555/diff/1/2
> File webkit/tools/layout_tests/test_expectations.txt (right):
>
> http://codereview.chromium.org/173555/diff/1/2#newcode745
> Line 745: //BUG13907 WIN : LayoutTests/media/video-src-remove.html =
> FAIL
> Why leave this in commented out instead of just removing it?


Well, there's 2 problems with that test.  1) it's flaky and 2) it's failing.
 Someone fixing 2 doesn't necessarily fix 1.  So they'll probably want to
add it back into that list when they're finished.  It's also documentation.
 I don't really see any downside.

[jorlow, 2009-08-27 23:04:14]

Yes, but it's not flaky now.  If you'd like, I can move the commented out
one down to right after the new version of it.  I think what'd be even
better is if multiple entries for one layout test didn't cause the script to
parse.  Or it'd at least be nice if we could list 2 bugs for one test.
The commented out one is NOT dead....it's another type of failure that is
currently overshadowed by the new type of failure.

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:31 AM, <ojan@chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> http://codereview.chromium.org/173555/diff/1/2
>>> File webkit/tools/layout_tests/test_expectations.txt (right):
>>>
>>> http://codereview.chromium.org/173555/diff/1/2#newcode745
>>> Line 745: //BUG13907 WIN : LayoutTests/media/video-src-remove.html =
>>> FAIL
>>> Why leave this in commented out instead of just removing it?
>>
>>
>> Well, there's 2 problems with that test.  1) it's flaky and 2) it's
>> failing.  Someone fixing 2 doesn't necessarily fix 1.  So they'll probably
>> want to add it back into that list when they're finished.  It's also
>> documentation.  I don't really see any downside.
>>
>
> We have a process for dealing with flaky tests. If it passes sometimes and
> fails sometimes, mark it PASS FAIL. Why is this case an exception? I see two
> downsides:
>
>    1. Now when it fails, it will turn the tree red.
>    2. If we make a practice of leaving in commented out tests this file
>    becomes even more bloated than it is now.
>
>

[ojan, 2009-08-27 23:35:55]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:31 AM, <ojan@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> http://codereview.chromium.org/173555/diff/1/2
>> File webkit/tools/layout_tests/test_expectations.txt (right):
>>
>> http://codereview.chromium.org/173555/diff/1/2#newcode745
>> Line 745: //BUG13907 WIN : LayoutTests/media/video-src-remove.html =
>> FAIL
>> Why leave this in commented out instead of just removing it?
>
>
> Well, there's 2 problems with that test.  1) it's flaky and 2) it's
> failing.  Someone fixing 2 doesn't necessarily fix 1.  So they'll probably
> want to add it back into that list when they're finished.  It's also
> documentation.  I don't really see any downside.
>

We have a process for dealing with flaky tests. If it passes sometimes and
fails sometimes, mark it PASS FAIL. Why is this case an exception? I see two
downsides:

   1. Now when it fails, it will turn the tree red.
   2. If we make a practice of leaving in commented out tests this file
   becomes even more bloated than it is now.