On 10.10.16 21:31, Jim Graham wrote:
OK, but you only need a line width of 2.0 to cover the gap regardless of
scale. Line width scales in user space so larger scales scale up the
line width along with the clip region being rendered. With
STROKE_CONTROL on, 2.0 is plenty because the line is normalized (though
I'm not sure the test should assume that). WITH STROKE_PURE, 2.0 is
precisely exactly the right amount. Round-off error might theoretically
bite us, so maybe 2.01 just to be safe.
When I tried to use w=2/3/4/5 I got a situation when no lines are drawn
to the image. I guess to paint something we need to cover at least half
of the pixel, this is not the case when line is w=2 and small scale is used.
In the drawImage case in the test, is there a reason to stretch the
image to MAX_INT size? Isn't (img,0,0,null) enough? The issue with the
MAX_INT arguments is that this then becomes not only a test of clipping,
but a test for how our image scaling handles huge scales that might
overflow. Those should be tested independently if we fear there is a
problem with image scaling.
This is extreme case which I tried to test, intersect the clip + the
scale on graphics + the scale from drawImage, since this huge
coordinates also can affect the clip, if intersection will be done
incorrectly.
Also, This line in the test case:
161 if (rgb != goldRGB && rgb != GREEN.getRGB()
162 && rgb != RED.getRGB()) {
Will give us a pass on the test as long as we made the same mistake for
both the rect clip and the shape clip. I think you want "(rgb !=
goldRGB) || (rgb != GREEN && rgb != RED)"...?
Correct, I will update the test.
--
Best regards, Sergey.
