OK, I'm going to implement a newline separated list format for V3 of these patches. If you want to rename the tests, just rename them in the json file.
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Eric Anholt <[email protected]> wrote: > Kenneth Graunke <[email protected]> writes: > > > On 05/19/2013 07:30 AM, Ken Phillis Jr wrote: > >> On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Kenneth Graunke <[email protected]> > 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. > > We shouldn't be working around bad text editors in piglit. > > _______________________________________________ > Piglit mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit > >
_______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
