Ilia Mirkin <[email protected]> writes: > On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Eric Anholt <[email protected]> wrote: >> Ilia Mirkin <[email protected]> writes:
>> >> Other than that, this is a nice simple test. We're going to want an >> all-the-formats testcase before we land clear_texture in Mesa, but this >> is a good start. > > Absolutely. And testing glClearTexSubImage too (where the visual > representation may become more interesting). And an api-errors style > test. And I want to test various widths/heights, in case e.g. POT > works but NPOT doesn't. I'm thinking that 32 and 33 actually cover > most cases. This all sounds good! > Should I make these into subtests, or is it fine to just have the one > test? Long-term, should this 'simple' test go away entirely in favor > of a all-formats test that does it all? I think there's a lot to be said for having a dead simple sanity test test, along with all the complicated stuff. When you're first lighting up the extension, having all the other variants in the way obscures the initial debugging. For similar reasons, I lean toward separate test files instead of subtests unless the code sharing is massive. I'm trying to optimize for me debugging the driver in the future, not me writing the test now. The bodies of tests don't change much over time, so there's less maintenance burden from code duplication than in most codebases we work on.
pgpEYl1PWT86C.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
