On 05/19/2013 07:30 AM, Ken Phillis Jr wrote:
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org> wrote:
On 05/18/2013 09:35 PM, Dylan Baker wrote:
My problem with the current list format is its too complex, and is
trying to solve nonexistent problems. There is no reason one should need
to rename the test results in the HTML summary. It's only going to lead
to headaches later on trying to identify what is actually in that column
"corrected name".
I personally like either nothing, since it doesn't appear that is a
popular feature, or a simple space, coma, or new line separated list of
results files. Its clean, simple, and doesn't require much explanation.
Personally, I see no value in the ability to load a list of results files.
Specifying them on the command line works just fine. I had assumed it was a
newline or space separated list, but apparently it's something more
complicated. I don't even know the syntax, and I've been using Piglit for
years...
Does anybody even use that feature?
Yes, I am actually one of the few users that use the list feature.
Okay, cool, so someone does use it...
I also knew that the name override did not work. This probably was
broken during one of the many changes to the piglit python scripts. As
for reasons to use the override, It's mainly a convenience feature to
help prevent people from having problems opening up the large results
files that is produced during the quick-driver tests.
I also don't understand the need to rename the columns when specifying the
result files. If I want to rename a result (usually because I typo'd when
doing piglit-run), I just edit the file and change the name...
I'm not a fan of making this a fancy json syntax unless there's a real
compelling use case.
The compelling reason is that it is not exactly easy for a lot of
developers looking at getting into fixing bugs related to mesa that
appear in piglit may not be able to handle the text editors nor have
knowledge of the various text editors. I know that vi and nano can
handle the larger files without a problem, but most of the time novice
developers will open up the text file using the easier to handle x11
based editors that are included with the desktop environment. This
means that the text editors that are used will be gedit ( for gnome ),
pluma ( for mate desktop), and whatever else is used in the other text
editors. I have personally found that gedit (and pluma ) do not handle
the large json results files very well even on a modern machine with 2
gb (or more) of system memory
Frankly, the fact that gedit has trouble with this is just plain
embarassing. KDE's text editors (kwrite and kate) both handle these
files just fine...instantly available and ready to work with.
I would file a bug against those text editors. I don't think this is
something we should work around in Piglit.
That's just one opinion though, perhaps other people have thoughts.
--Ken
_______________________________________________
Piglit mailing list
Piglit@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
