On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Tom Gall <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Eric, > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Eric Anholt <[email protected]> wrote: >> Matt Turner <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Tom Gall <[email protected]> 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. _______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
