-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 31/08/15 03:58 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 10:43:22 +0300 Pekka Paalanen > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 10:16:17 +0300 Pekka Paalanen >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Btw. I CC'd you on >>> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=83985 where we >>> have been talking about testing things. I wonder how you'd >>> handle some tests being specific to a backend, and some tests >>> being generic such that a user (the person doing 'make check') >>> could run it against any backend he chooses? If we need such >>> things... perhaps backend-specificity comes mostly from >>> configuration and options, so maybe we might be able to unify >>> the options so much that the differences don't matter. >>> >>> And then screenshot-based tests are likely something we want >>> to run once for each possible renderer for a chosen backend. >>> >>> >>> Hmm... I just got an idea. >>> >>> We've been adding renderer support to headless-backend.so so >>> that we could run screenshot-based tests headless. What if... >>> we kept headless backend without real renderers (only mocked >>> renderer, one capable of initialising >>> EGL_WL_bind_wayland_display though), ran Weston/wayland on top >>> of Weston/headless, and test clients on the Weston/wayland >>> instance? >>> >>> It might require some work on the wayland-backend, but it >>> would also leave all testing related mocks and hacks into the >>> headless backend code, without leaking it into gl-renderer or >>> such. And it would stress the wayland-backend which I imagine >>> could use more use. >>> >>> Well, that's just a wild idea, I'm not sure what it would >>> entail. What do you all think? >> >> Wait... using Weston/headless to host Weston/wayland would >> immediately enable software GL rendering, wouldn't it? The EGL >> Wayland platform in Mesa today supports software-GL on wl_shm. >> This means we should be able to test Weston's gl-renderer on >> llvmpipe by just running it with the wayland-backend on another >> Weston instace. > > Hi all, > > I think this needs a bit of discussion. Should we be adding more > and more renderer features into the headless backend, or should we > move to running Weston/wayland on top of Weston/headless for 'make > check'? > > It is a blocker question for things like > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=83985 which Dawid is > working on. > > Derek, I recall you had plans to control Weston's repaint loop from > tests. How would that be affected if we run nested instead of > directly on headless?
Right, I'll try to get a new revision of those patches out shortly after the release... I can't immediately think of a reason why nesting would cause problems. I think it should be ok. > The reason why I like the nested approach now is that while it > allows immediately to run things with llvmpipe, we would not need > to modify gl-renderer to e.g. render into an FBO just for testing. > We could have the headless backend even initialize a render node > and support EGL_WL_bind_wayland_display. Code only related to > testing would be limited into the headless backend with its > built-in mock-renderer. Well, I think the clock control stuff would have to take place in the nested instance, so there's a limit to how much we can compartmentalize the test stuff to the headless backend? Screenshots would be taken on the headless backend though - the test clients would have to connect to both the nested and the parent compositor? > What do you think? > > Hmm, and we could pull in fullscreen-shell into the mix and use it > on headless. The wayland backend seems to already have code for > it. This would avoid running weston-desktop-shell or the VKB app > for the headless instance. I guess if I was trying very hard to find a reason to dislike this it would be that changes to fullscreen-shell could break all sorts of tests that don't intentionally test fullscreen-shell... Really though, I think it seems like a reasonable idea. And I think fullscreen-shell is fairly mature. Having gl-renderer not have to worry about whether it's in "test mode" or not sounds like the lesser of two evils. > > > Thanks, pq > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJV5KFTAAoJEF5USY5pfxHXhDcH/i0SYW7+9No5Ax/1RtJkZdHt FW2crauYeH6JzUdIvt7qx3ByXJD3L0JFB27OZFfhfOQ3sccoH7iE2BRu00wNr8ex 5WhA/YpzuJqyQDwyDybi4u9noT/5alJinkItnZphQOZ5l0ly2zvuLSgvdpD6HQnm AsSqqf6fmd7cEybXM8EzJfnRkNq3CwAzsHE5f15+xv6S2mR9zVj5H/I9/0BjC/y/ X8fBW1dPXAIS+XI8QC4SQA5TtI8k2lHZCNX5tS8JGX8q07o8Hy1/ajt7JXtv5GXt RLEOyc6nsHxEldlf6eikdNeawiLaCWD9oaGcW9Yd47yweOqncnxedvnLQFCqMuA= =12qO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
