Hi Matt, On Dec 20, 2012, at 10:11 PM, Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Tom Gall <tom.g...@linaro.org> wrote: >> Hi Eric, >> >> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Eric Anholt <e...@anholt.net> wrote: >>> Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Tom Gall <tom.g...@linaro.org> wrote: >>>>> A few variations are commented out due to results that are >>>>> incorrect and need to be followed up with Mesa, such as modifying >>>>> the buffer even tho the format is invalid. There are cases where >>>>> the returned data is incorrectly formated. These can best be >>>>> addressed in time and I thought it best to include the variations >>>>> but in their commented out form. >>>> >>>> I think Eric already told you that it's okay to commit failing tests. >>> >>> Not just okay, it's expected. >>> >>> Other note: I don't think the name "unit" belongs in this. Nothing in >>> piglit is a unit test according to what I've understood or how unit >>> tests are described on wikipedia. >> >> My intent is it's first in the series of being something "unit" test >> like across the gles2 api. It's a start and at this point I've been >> mostly heads down on the shaders and thinking about piglit + Android. > > I agree with Eric. A unit test is something that is in the same > codebase as the code it's testing. A unit test would, for instance, > confirm that internal Mesa functions behave as expected. I don't think > this is a unit test. Ok I'll drop that from the name and swizzle the commit message appropriately. Thanks. Tom _______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list Piglit@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit