On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 11:07:26PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 08:42:18PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> > Alex Converse <[email protected]> writes:
> > > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Mans Rullgard <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> These files all have pcm audio which is tested elsewhere.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Mans Rullgard <[email protected]>
> > >> ---
> > >>  tests/fate/demux.mak             |    3 --
> > >>  tests/fate/qt.mak                |    2 +-
> > >>  tests/fate/screen.mak            |    4 +-
> > >>  tests/fate/video.mak             |   25 +++++----
> > >>  tests/ref/fate/8bps              |   24 ---------
> > >>  tests/ref/fate/armovie-escape124 |    5 --
> > >>  tests/ref/fate/bethsoft-vid      |   72 -------------------------
> > >>  tests/ref/fate/bfi               |   58 --------------------
> > >>  tests/ref/fate/corepng           |   20 -------
> > >>  tests/ref/fate/creatureshock-avs |   37 -------------
> > >>  tests/ref/fate/cyberia-c93       |    5 --
> > >>  tests/ref/fate/dxtory            |    1 -
> > >>  tests/ref/fate/id-cin-video      |   53 ------------------
> > >>  tests/ref/fate/siff              |    4 --
> > >>  tests/ref/fate/sp5x              |   10 ----
> > >>  tests/ref/fate/tiertex-seq       |   78 ---------------------------
> > >>  tests/ref/fate/tmv               |  111 
> > >> --------------------------------------
> > >>  tests/ref/fate/tscc-15bit        |   16 ------
> > >>  tests/ref/fate/wc3movie-xan      |   36 -------------
> > >>  19 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 547 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > This seems to substantially lower our coverage for demuxers. In these
> > > cases the code that demuxes the audio is still executed but now we no
> > > longer get to see the timestamps or that we are grabbing the correct
> > > bytes for each audio frame. What's the motivation for this? I under
> > > stand trying to test features in isolation, but "decoding" linear PCM
> > > audio isn't much more work than just copying, sometimes with a
> > > byteswap.
> > 
> > The ultimate goal is to make it possible to test even a very minimal
> > configuration.  How about adding demux-only tests for those of these
> > containers that are not fully covered otherwise?
> 
> I'm with Mans here - the long-term goal is to be able to test any config,
> not just the full-featured ones.  This will require making changes like
> this one here and there.  Sometimes you have to pass through a little
> valley to reach the next summit.

Can we revisit this please?  The patchset should go in, it will be
long-term beneficial.

Diego
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel

Reply via email to