On Monday, April 07, 2014 10:48:10 PM Ilia Mirkin wrote: > On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 7:49 PM, Dylan Baker <[email protected]> wrote: > > Actually, branches do have a pass fail status, it's the worst status of > > that branch's children. > > > > I've been thinking of using a Tree structure to represent the tests in > > Summary. The problem with the current architecture (as it pertains to this > > problem) is that the the statuses of each group are auto-generated from > > the > > 'worst' status in their children, and the only way to set a group status > > is > > after the entire tree has been generated. > > > > If you write a patch to add a fake subtest I'll be sure to look at it. > > It's actually worse than I thought. It's not a problem generating the > summary, it's a problem generating the results file in the first > place. > > This logic is in Test.execute: > > if 'subtest' in result and len(result['subtest']) > 1: > for test in result['subtest']: > result['result'] = result['subtest'][test] > json_writer.write_dict_item(os.path.join(path, > test), result)
If there is only one subtest the subtest is written out and it's presented in summary with the subtest status as the test status. at least, that was the reasoning. > > (why is it > 1 and not > 0? whatever.) In any case, this ensures that > we don't even have the right stuff in the result, so no amount of code > changes to summary can fix it. I thought of throwing in a comparison > of the statuses, but realized they're strings. Would it be an API > abuse to import framework.status and parse them here? I don't think so. I did that originally, but decided that since we didn't need to there wasn't a lot of reason to do a worthless string > object conversion. > > -ilia
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
