third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/FlagExpectations/isolate-extensions - Issue 2098073002: Add layout test expectations for --isolate-extensions.

Side by Side Diff

Use n/p to move between diff chunks; N/P to move between comments. Draft comments are only viewable by you.

Keyboard Shortcuts

	File
u :	up to issue
j / k :	jump to file after / before current file
J / K :	jump to next file with a comment after / before current file
	Side-by-side diff
i :	toggle intra-line diffs
e :	expand all comments
c :	collapse all comments
s :	toggle showing all comments
n / p :	next / previous diff chunk or comment
N / P :	next / previous comment
<Up> / <Down> :	next / previous line

	Issue
u :	up to list of issues
j / k :	jump to patch after / before current patch
o / <Enter> :	open current patch in side-by-side view
i :	open current patch in unified diff view

	Issue List
j / k :	jump to issue after / before current issue
o / <Enter> :	open current issue

Side by Side Diff: third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/FlagExpectations/isolate-extensions

Issue 2098073002: Add layout test expectations for --isolate-extensions. (Closed) Base URL: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git@master

Patch Set: Created 4 years, 5 months ago

Use n/p to move between diff chunks; N/P to move between comments. Draft comments are only viewable by you.

Jump to:

View unified diff | Download patch

OLD	NEW
(Empty)
	1 # These tests currently fail when they run with --isolate-extensions.
	Charlie Reis 2016/06/24 23:26:02 Is that accurate, or do you need to run them with Is that accurate, or do you need to run them with --isolate-sites-for-testing=.is? alexmos* 2016/06/24 23:54:06 Indeed, they should run with --isolate-sites-for-t Show quoted text On 2016/06/24 23:26:02, Charlie Reis wrote: > Is that accurate, or do you need to run them with > --isolate-sites-for-testing=.is? Indeed, they should run with --isolate-sites-for-testing=.is. Do you think it's worth renaming the file itself to isolate-sites-for-testing? Charlie Reis 2016/06/25 00:05:15 Nah, we do the same thing with isolate-extensions. Show quoted text On 2016/06/24 23:54:06, alexmos wrote: > On 2016/06/24 23:26:02, Charlie Reis wrote: > > Is that accurate, or do you need to run them with > > --isolate-sites-for-testing=.is? > > Indeed, they should run with --isolate-sites-for-testing=.is. > > Do you think it's worth renaming the file itself to isolate-sites-for-testing? Nah, we do the same thing with isolate-extensions.content_browsertests.filter.
	2

	3 # https://crbug.com/585194 - back/forward lists look different with --site-per-p rocess

	4 http/tests/navigation/back-to-dynamic-iframe.html [ Failure Timeout ]

	5 http/tests/navigation/back-to-redirect-with-frame.php [ Failure ]

	6

	7 # https://crbug.com/602493 - Layout tests harness doesn't support history dump a cross OOPIFs

	8 http/tests/security/mixedContent/insecure-iframe-in-main-frame.html [ Failure ]
	Charlie Reis 2016/06/24 23:26:02 Looks like https://crbug.com/582522 also applies t Looks like https://crbug.com/582522 also applies to this one (per comment 2 on the bug). alexmos 2016/06/24 23:54:06 Yep, reference added. Show quoted text On 2016/06/24 23:26:02, Charlie Reis wrote: > Looks like https://crbug.com/582522 also applies to this one (per comment 2 on > the bug). Yep, reference added.
	9

	10 # https://crbug.com/585171 - iframe restored from history should be excluded fro m performance entries.

	11 http/tests/misc/resource-timing-iframe-restored-from-history.html [ Failure Time out ]

	12

	13 # TODO(alexmos,lukasza): Triage these failures and assign more specific bugs.

	14 fast/history/same-document-iframes-changing-fragment.html [ Failure ]

	15 fast/history/same-document-iframes-changing-pushstate.html [ Failure ]

	16 fast/loader/form-state-restore-with-frames.html [ Failure ]
	Charlie Reis 2016/06/24 23:26:02 Do you plan for the Win FYI bot to run the full su Do you plan for the Win FYI bot to run the full suite of layout tests? We might want to revisit depending on how long it takes. :) alexmos 2016/06/24 23:54:06 I was going to, yes, but you're right that speed m Show quoted text On 2016/06/24 23:26:02, Charlie Reis wrote: > Do you plan for the Win FYI bot to run the full suite of layout tests? We might > want to revisit depending on how long it takes. :) I was going to, yes, but you're right that speed might be an issue, especially given how slow this bot already is. We can try the full set and see how it goes. Looks like PlzNavigate runs the full set on their bot, so I'm cautiously optimistic.
	17

OLD	NEW

« no previous file with comments | « no previous file | no next file » | no next file with comments »