On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 02:40:42PM -0600, Jeff McGee wrote:
> There doesn't seem to be anything like the exit handlers for running when
> a subtest exits. I need a failed subtest to be able to cleanup after
> itself to avoid contaminating subsequent subtests. Have I missed something?
> Perhaps this
There doesn't seem to be anything like the exit handlers for running when
a subtest exits. I need a failed subtest to be able to cleanup after
itself to avoid contaminating subsequent subtests. Have I missed something?
Perhaps this is not a problem when running subtests individually through
piglit?
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:27:03AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:55 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > Anything you put out to stderr will be tracked as a "warn" in piglit. Atm
> > we don't have any such use-case though I think, mostly since keeping
> > unbuffer stderr and buf
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:55 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Anything you put out to stderr will be tracked as a "warn" in piglit. Atm
> we don't have any such use-case though I think, mostly since keeping
> unbuffer stderr and buffered stdout in sync is a pain ;-) But I guess we
> could formalize thi
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 05:26:28PM -0600, Jeff McGee wrote:
> I have a few questions about conventions observed in writing IGT tests.
>
> I don't see any standard wrapper for logging other than the logging that goes
> with certain igt_ control flow functions. Is it recommended to limit logging
>
I have a few questions about conventions observed in writing IGT tests.
I don't see any standard wrapper for logging other than the logging that goes
with certain igt_ control flow functions. Is it recommended to limit logging to
just these? I see some different approaches to supporting verbose mo
