Re: [PATCH 1/5] drm/tests: Test drm_rect_intersect()

[Arthur Grillo Queiroz Cabral]

On 22/03/23 11:26, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 11:06:57AM -0300, Arthur Grillo wrote:
>> Insert test for the drm_rect_intersect() function, it also create a
>> helper for comparing drm_rects more easily.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Arthur Grillo <arthurgri...@riseup.net>
>> ---
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_rect_test.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_rect_test.c 
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_rect_test.c
>> index e9809ea32696..f700984f70a8 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_rect_test.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_rect_test.c
>> @@ -9,6 +9,15 @@
>>  
>>  #include <drm/drm_rect.h>
>>  
>> +static void drm_rect_compare(struct kunit *test, const struct drm_rect *r,
>> +                         const struct drm_rect *expected)
>> +{
>> +    KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, r->x1, expected->x1);
>> +    KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, r->y1, expected->y1);
>> +    KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, drm_rect_width(r), drm_rect_width(expected));
>> +    KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, drm_rect_height(r), drm_rect_height(expected));
>> +}
> 
> We already have a drm_rect_equals().
> 

I knew about drm_rect_equals(), but it only returns a boolean value, I
thought that it would be better to test each attribute independently
to find errors easily in the tested functions.

>> +
>>  static void drm_test_rect_clip_scaled_div_by_zero(struct kunit *test)
>>  {
>>      struct drm_rect src, dst, clip;
>> @@ -196,11 +205,32 @@ static void 
>> drm_test_rect_clip_scaled_signed_vs_unsigned(struct kunit *test)
>>      KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, drm_rect_visible(&src), "Source should not 
>> be visible\n");
>>  }
>>  
>> +static void drm_test_rect_intersect(struct kunit *test)
>> +{
>> +    struct drm_rect r1, r2;
>> +    bool visible;
>> +
>> +    drm_rect_init(&r1, 0, 0, 2, 2);
>> +    drm_rect_init(&r2, 1, 1, 2, 2);
>> +
>> +    visible = drm_rect_intersect(&r1, &r2);
>> +
>> +    KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE_MSG(test, visible, "Interserction should be a visible 
>> rect");
>> +    drm_rect_compare(test, &r1, &DRM_RECT_INIT(1, 1, 1, 1));
>> +
>> +    drm_rect_init(&r1, 0, 0, 1, 1);
>> +
> 
> I would re-init r2 here too to make it easier to see what we're
> actually testing.

Great idea.

> 
> I would probably test a few more variations of the overlap between
> the rectangles, eg: equal rectangles, one smaller one fully inside
> the bigger one, overlaps across different edges/corners.
> 

Okay, I will make more tests for this function.

>> +    visible = drm_rect_intersect(&r1, &r2);
>> +
>> +    KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, visible, "Interserction should not be a 
>> visible rect");
>> +}
>> +
>>  static struct kunit_case drm_rect_tests[] = {
>>      KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_rect_clip_scaled_div_by_zero),
>>      KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_rect_clip_scaled_not_clipped),
>>      KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_rect_clip_scaled_clipped),
>>      KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_rect_clip_scaled_signed_vs_unsigned),
>> +    KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_rect_intersect),
>>      { }
>>  };
>>  
>> -- 
>> 2.39.2
> 

Thank you for your review!

Regards,
~Arthur Grillo