| Summary: | [css-cascade] No need to defer applying text-decoration properties | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | WebKit | Reporter: | Oriol Brufau <obrufau> | ||||
| Component: | CSS | Assignee: | Oriol Brufau <obrufau> | ||||
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||||||
| Severity: | Normal | CC: | darin, koivisto, webkit-bug-importer | ||||
| Priority: | P2 | Keywords: | InRadar | ||||
| Version: | WebKit Nightly Build | ||||||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||||||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||||||
| Bug Depends on: | 237175 | ||||||
| Bug Blocks: | 238125 | ||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
Oriol Brufau
2022-03-20 08:41:05 PDT
Created attachment 455196 [details]
Patch
PTAL, trivial patch. Retrying to see if the iOS-wk2 failure goes away. Comment on attachment 455196 [details] Patch I already retried iOS-wk2 a few times, but fast/text/text-shadow-ink-overflow-missing.html keeps failing all the time, and not just with my patch: https://ews-build.webkit.org/#/builders/iOS-15-Simulator-WK2-Tests-EWS So it's unrelated, cq+ Committed r291568 (248669@main): <https://commits.webkit.org/248669@main> All reviewed patches have been landed. Closing bug and clearing flags on attachment 455196 [details]. That's not how EWS is supposed to work. If it fails both with and without the patch it's not supposed to be red. Look at an example like this one: https://ews-build.webkit.org/#/builders/68/builds/11070 Note that it says the test *passes* without the patch it was evaluating. I wonder why EWS comes to that conclusion. (In reply to Darin Adler from comment #7) > That's not how EWS is supposed to work. If it fails both with and without > the patch it's not supposed to be red. Look at an example like this one: > > https://ews-build.webkit.org/#/builders/68/builds/11070 > > Note that it says the test *passes* without the patch it was evaluating. I > wonder why EWS comes to that conclusion. I think it may be because when running the tests without the patch, it only runs the tests that previously failed, not all of them. Maybe this uses less resources on the machine or something, and affects the result? So it's not a matter of whether the patch is applied or not, but the number tests running at the same time. These just happen to be correlated. Seems like we need to change EWS to run the tests that failed *with* the patch too then, otherwise the A/B is invalid. |