I agree with the idea of removing 'external/', but I won't do it as a part
of the LayoutTests move.
- Moving LayoutTests itself is a high-risk change. Try bots are almost
useless, and there are several external dependencies. I'd like to avoid
additional complexity and risk.
'external/' at the same time. Unlike moving source code, I don't think we
should avoid massive changes for cleaner revision log.
We should remove 'external/' before or after the LayoutTests move. If the
transient hack to ignore 'external/' in TestExpectations entries internally.
Post by Philip JägenstedtThanks to Kent-san for working on this indeed! Seeing the previous call
for volunteers
<https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/blink-dev/KKNbuzj-3HY/Br23sKv-BwAJ>
we actually put this on our Ecosystem Infra Q4 OKRs
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UKuPaQm2YGHYEfbrrYBHoCUGAVhyQZEp8nE09qT7vYg/edit#heading=h.59xoo9yusmn3>,
and it's great to see the work getting done without our investment of time.
As Robert says, we have talked a fair bit in our team about various ways
of renaming to make WPT more prominent and obviously the default test
suite, and had thought of a renaming as an opportunity to do this. Within
the limitation of a single test root, third_party/blink/web_tests/wpt does
seem like the ideal directory name.
So, if we could pitch in and make the external/wpt -> wpt rename part of
this we'd much appreciate it.
For everything else, there's really a lot of types of tests in
LayoutTests, some of which could be part of wpt and some that probably
never could. Rather than moving them all into internal/, I think we might
end up going through them at a more granular level, perhaps putting them
into categories like run_like_wpt_but_dont_export/, paint_invalidation/,
style_recalc_internal/ and similar. (Made up names, obviously.) With a good
README, we can still end up in a situation where wpt/ is the directory that
people naturally find when adding tests.
Post by Robert MaFirst of all, thanks for doing the hard work, Kent!
I'd like to second Morten's suggestion of taking the chance to shorten
WPT paths. This is also and idea Philip (cc'ed) and I have been talking
about.
Jeremy's response actually pointed out the two important aspects of this
* Desirability: we would like to shorten the path to WPT because of two
1) Now that with CSS tests merged into WPT, there is really only one
"external" suite of web test, i.e. WPT. And the web-platform-tests group
hopes to keep it that way (WPT is expected to be the single suite for
everything except ECMAScript & WebGL
<https://web-platform-tests.org/introduction.html>). Therefore, the
"external" layer is unnecessary, only making the tree deep and the path
tedious.
2) We would like to promote WPT as the default suite for web tests. And
"external" not only makes the path less developer friendly, but also sends
the wrong signal, especially to newcomers ("external" implies some
*imported* tests that shouldn't be modified, whereas in fact WPT is
being *synced* and is a first-class citizen). Furthermore, it'd make our
position clearer if we could move all non-WPT tests into internal/ legacy/,
but that might cause too much disturbance (see below).
* Complexity & timing: I think there are three major additional concerns
result history, expectation files, and virtual suite definitions, since all
of them use the relative path from LayoutTests as the identifier for a test.
I would argue that getting rid of "external/" (i.e. promoting
external/wpt to wpt/) is not a big issue. The directory structure of WPT
itself is already quite fluid; we've already had quite a few large-scale
renaming in WPT, so there's not too much reliable result history to begin
with. There are around 3K lines of expectations for WPT, most of which are
automatically generated by the importer. And there are only 41 virtual
suites in WPT. Moving the non-WPT tests into internal/, on the other hand,
is understandably more controversial because of their different natures on
these regards.
I agree moving LayoutTests is already a tricky change, but I'd say this
is exactly the reason why it'd be a good timing to rejig the directory
structure -- the *additional* complexity and risk is small compared to
moving the whole LayoutTests, and we already have a closed tree (instead of
closing the tree again in the future just to tweak the directory structure).
To summarize, I'm proposing to take the chance to *rename external/wpt
to wpt*. I can help to prepare the change and volunteer to stay on call
to work with Kent when the tree is closed in case anything goes wrong. What
do you think, Kent?
Please feel free to raise any other concerns or different opinions.
Post by Jeremy RomanI'm not sure it's desirable to tie rewriting all TestExpectations,
virtual test suites, and other things that use LayoutTests-relative paths,
to what is already likely to be a fairly large and tricky change.
Post by PhistucKHow about .../web_tests/internal/ for non-web-platform-tests tests?
â*PhistucK*
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 11:18 AM Morten Stenshorne <
Post by TAMURA, KentWe're going to move third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests to
third_party/blink/web_tests. The plan is to close the tree on Nov.
Post by TAMURA, Kent25 at 2:00pm PST, on Nov. 26 at 7:00am JST, and we open the tree in
a few hours if we have no unexpected issues.
Post by TAMURA, KentWe just rebase and merge the following two CLs.
https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/1328627
https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/infra/infra/+/1331192
If you have any concerns, please let me know.
Are there any plans to shorten the path to WPT tests?
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/external/wpt/ (or
third_party/blink/web_tests/external/wpt/) is rather tedious. Given that
the default now is to write WPT tests, shouldn't we move all the *other*
tests into something slightly more inconvenient (e.g. web_tests/legacy/
or web_tests/blink/), and put WPT tests directly under the web_tests/
root, so that e.g. the WPT test css/css-multicol/multicol-gap-000.xht is
found under third_party/blink/web_tests/css/css-multicol/ in our repo
(and e.g. good old
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/fast/inline/inline-body-crash.html moved
under third_party/blink/web_tests/blink/fast/inline/)?
--
Morten Stenshorne, Software developer,
Blink/Layout, Google, Oslo, Norway
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "blink-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/ozzizhudibe6.fsf%40aeneas.osl.corp.google.com
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "blink-dev" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CABc02_JSRhdB8ZefXsoka8vMEKRRy0Dz5%2B3Yn1UMe6%2Bi9%2B8nqw%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CABc02_JSRhdB8ZefXsoka8vMEKRRy0Dz5%2B3Yn1UMe6%2Bi9%2B8nqw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"blink-dev" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAARdPYeN6eVTs6k7T3doDcf-F3bRKzwM4DR4dKiUS9NXwyPXhA%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAARdPYeN6eVTs6k7T3doDcf-F3bRKzwM4DR4dKiUS9NXwyPXhA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
.