On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Marek Olšák <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Ilia Mirkin <[email protected]> wrote: >> Before rewriting (fun though it is!), we should figure out what we'd >> want to see, in a perfect world. Even that much isn't clear to me. Do >> we want to promote test tree structure to first-class status, thus >> being able to accurate express the situation? That would require HTML >> changes as well, I think, since only leaves can have pass/fail status >> right now, and everything else is just a n/m number. My hack should >> make it clear what happened while also minimizing the amount of >> change. I don't think that this is a common scenario (passing subtests >> followed by crash), so just making it visible may be good enough. > > It's just as common as everything. It actually happened to me last > week when I broke mipmap generation for some of the formats.
Perhaps I didn't phrase that correctly. It's a lot more common for tests not to crash than it is for them to crash. We shouldn't optimize for the case of it crashing at the expense of the non-crashing case, that's all. _______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
