Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

support layout tests #3868

Closed
sigmundch opened this issue Jun 25, 2012 · 4 comments
Closed

support layout tests #3868

sigmundch opened this issue Jun 25, 2012 · 4 comments
Assignees
Labels
area-test Cross-cutting test issues (use area- labels for specific failures; not used for package:test). type-enhancement A request for a change that isn't a bug

Comments

@sigmundch
Copy link
Member

Add support in test.dart for running layout tests.

Bill - I was thinking of the following strategy to address this issue and issue #3864, but I wanted to double check with you first.

I'm thinking of adding a way to specify flags for the drt binary. We could specify them from the test like we do for VMOptions and DartcOptions (comments in the actual test). These options would be passed as flags to drt-trampoline.

To address layout tests we could do:
// DRTOptions= --expected_png_output=test_expectation_foo.png

To support shadow dom tests (issue #3864) we would pass:
// DRTOptions= --enable_shadow_dom
(or something similar)

Thoughts?

@sethladd
Copy link
Contributor

Added Triaged label.

@whesse
Copy link
Contributor

whesse commented Jun 26, 2012

I'm thinking it would be more localized if the flags could be created inside drt-trampoline. I'm not sure if we need these just on Dartium, or also on dart2ds on drt.
Rather than add additional options to be read by the test scripts, and passed on to drt-trampoline, why not just let drt-trampoline decide, based on comments in the test, what options to add?

I'm surprised that we want to add options to each and every test file, if there is a general pattern to the options, that we could create automatically.

If we do want this in the tests, could we consolidate all of these option types to
// RuntimeOptions(vm)=
// RuntimeOptions(drt)=
// CompilerOptions(dartc)=


Removed Type-Defect label.
Added Type-Enhancement label.

@sigmundch
Copy link
Member Author

In the case of --enable_shadow_dom, I think you are right, we should just do this directly in drt_trampoline/run_selenium.

Sam was playing with some of this today and it seems that drt has the shadowDom enabled by default, so we just had to add the flag to dartium in run_selenium.

As for layout tests. We will need the test scripts to do something special because we don't have to use the browser-test-wrapping that we normally do. I'll brainstorm a bit more here and follow up with more ideas.

@sigmundch
Copy link
Member Author

We added support for layout tests long ago, but recently we discovered better ways to tests shadow dom that do not require layout tests. So this feature was later removed.


Added Fixed label.

@sigmundch sigmundch added Type-Enhancement area-test Cross-cutting test issues (use area- labels for specific failures; not used for package:test). labels Sep 12, 2013
@sigmundch sigmundch self-assigned this Sep 12, 2013
@kevmoo kevmoo added type-enhancement A request for a change that isn't a bug and removed type-enhancement labels Mar 1, 2016
This issue was closed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area-test Cross-cutting test issues (use area- labels for specific failures; not used for package:test). type-enhancement A request for a change that isn't a bug
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants