On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Justin Dolske <dol...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Given the long history (shall I say "plague"?) of intermittent-orange in our
> tree, I can't agree that this would be a non-issue or is easy to fix! [Nor
> am I saying reusable tests are a bad idea -- just that it would seem wise to
> ramp up over time.]

To be fair, the reason intermittent orange is such a headache for us
is because our infrastructure for it is terrible.  It all revolves
around running tests in giant indivisible blocks that produce
semi-formatted plaintext output, which is then parsed (using regex?)
by various ad hoc tools, and huge amounts have to be done by hand.

Random orange would be a drastically smaller problem for us if, e.g.,
we ran tests individually instead of in giant chunks, and
automatically reran any failed test a few times to see if the failure
is intermittent, and restarted a run in the middle if something made
it crashed.  Based on what James is saying, it sounds like Opera has a
substantially more sophisticated system than we do (embarrassingly?).

Anyway, one major goal of an open web is that users should have as
many choices as possible for web browsers.  That means we need to put
special effort into making things as easy as possible for smaller
browsers.  So if Opera will definitely use our tests and other
browsers might or might not, I think that's a good reason to go ahead.
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Reply via email to