On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 03:05:49PM -0800, Ian Romanick wrote: > On 11/20/2015 02:14 PM, Dylan Baker wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 08:00:09PM -0800, Ian Romanick wrote: > >> From: Ian Romanick <[email protected]> > >> > >> If this test has problems with odd sample counts, the test should detect > >> that and SKIP. > > > > I'm not sure I agree. I think it's pretty reasonable for all.py to only > > pass valid inputs to a test binary. > > Presumably the test is going to do some sort of validation on the input > anyway. Most do. Now we have input massaging / validation in two > places, and we have to maintain it in two places. That seems bad. Right? >
I agree, but it also seems bad to me to have tests defined in all.py that will always return 'skip', and on one has a plan to make them work, right? I guess the assumption that I'm making in my logic is that the other tests can handle odd sample counts. Maybe that's a bad assumption?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
