Bug 91102
| Summary: | [Chromium] Support running Android-specific layout tests | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | WebKit | Reporter: | Leandro Graciá Gil <leandrogracia> |
| Component: | Tools / Tests | Assignee: | Nobody <webkit-unassigned> |
| Status: | RESOLVED WONTFIX | ||
| Severity: | Normal | CC: | abarth, leandrogracia, peter |
| Priority: | P2 | ||
| Version: | 528+ (Nightly build) | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Bug Depends on: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 66687 | ||
Leandro Graciá Gil
Perform the required changes to support the chromium-android platform in the test infrastructure so we can run Android-specific layout tests.
| Attachments | ||
|---|---|---|
| Add attachment proposed patch, testcase, etc. |
Adam Barth
Can you give an example of an Android-specific LayoutTest? Typically, we'd just put the LayoutTest in the http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/LayoutTests/platform/chromium-android directory.
Leandro Graciá Gil
(In reply to comment #1)
> Can you give an example of an Android-specific LayoutTest? Typically, we'd just put the LayoutTest in the http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/LayoutTests/platform/chromium-android directory.
I'm afraid I don't have anything ready to be uploaded yet, but I mean any layout tests that work with WebKit API features that are guarded by the ANDROID macro.
Adam Barth
> I'm afraid I don't have anything ready to be uploaded yet, but I mean any layout tests that work with WebKit API features that are guarded by the ANDROID macro.
Typically, LayoutTests don't work with the WebKit API, they work with the web platform API. Also, we generally don't guard things in the Chromium WebKit API with OS-specific macros.
I'm happy to look in the chromium-android branch if there are examples there that aren't ready to be uploaded yet. I should be clear that I'm not opposed to this idea. I'm just seeking to understand the motivation.
Leandro Graciá Gil
It seems that this was not required after all. Instead of layout tests WebKit unit tests have been used for the case I was considering (bug 93111).