I want to give everyone an update on how things are evolving. For now, I've focused most of the development on the Mac platform.
For the ref-tests-as-repaint-tests path, I've added an optional parameter to LTC.display() that should control if the repaint rectangles are tracked or not. If not specified or true, the repaint rectangles are tracked. After running very basic experiments, this seems to detect if repaint artifacts are present in a test. For the repaint-rects-as-repaint-tests path, I have some questions about what should be the best testing methodology. I'm thinking about something along these lines: * I don't think a new script option or DRT parameter are necessary; the repaint rectangles for a test can be extracted together with the pixel results * The format for the rectangles data should be simple, maybe X,Y,W,H separated by new-lines? Or the smallest rectangle that includes all of the repaint rectangles? Or another suggestion? * When initially running a repaint test, both a PNG and RR (repaint-rectangles) files are generated as baselines. At subsequent executions of the test, the RR expected output is preferred over the pixel results. This means that if the test author modifies the expected PNG, the test should still pass because the RR baseline exists. However, if a pixel test in preferred, deleting the expected RR output will force the test runner to fallback on the classic image diff code path. * A port may chose to repaint everything, even for partial canvas invalidation. Do you think it's correct to evaluate a test as passed if the expected repaint rectangles are included in the actual repaint rectangles? The simplest and straightforward way to compare the actual results with the expected ones is a simple bytes diff, but I'm not convinced it's correct. Any thoughts on this? The chromium DRT project has a different strategy for masking with the repaint rectangles; could someone help me understand better what happens in the WebViewHost::paintInvalidatedRegion() method and why exactly is iterating 3 times through that code necessary? (the comment looks a little obsoleted and I'd appreciate some clarifications). Overall, I see some difficulties in keeping the repaint rectangles based testing to be platform independent. Do you have any suggestions that may help with this? Once I'm finished patching the Python scripts to support the RR tests, I'll upload a patch so people can look over the approach. Thx, Andrei. _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
