On 8/7/2020 5:35 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 10:08:33PM +0300, Martin Storsjö wrote: >> On Mon, 3 Aug 2020, Martin Storsjö wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 3 Aug 2020, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >>> >>>> is this removing the only test which tests the "-re" flag ? >>>> if so that would reduce test coverage >>> >>> Well, tehcnically yes, but this test doesn't actually test whether the >>> "-re" flag does what it's supposed to or anything like that - it only >>> tests that adding the flag doesn't error out and doesn't alter the >>> output. > > yes > > >>> And it looks very much unintentional here. > > maybe > > >> >> Do you want to follow up the discussion here? I'd like at least some sort of >> acknowledgement back on the discussion before going forward with it in any >> direction. > > sorry for the lack of reply, theres always more to reply to and do then i seem > to have time. > > About it not fully testing things, that is of course not great but testing > things halfway is still better than not testing at all. > > Also it may make sense given the large number of features we have to test > multiple per test. > For example with 200 features, it would take 200 individual tests to test each > in its own test, but only 10 tests if 4 of these would always test the same > feature. this of course assumes all kinds of things, its more meant to show > that a bit of "chaos" in what each test tests could actually improve the > amount of information we could obtain from the pattern of failing tests > > Thanks
If it's just about not removing coverage/testing of -re, it could be added to some other test with less frames than this one, so it doesn't take five seconds. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
