On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. >
It still seems to decrease demuxer coverage. Why not split the tests if you want to test minimal configurations? _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
