2018-07-01 14:51 GMT+02:00, James Almer <jamr...@gmail.com>: > On 7/1/2018 8:46 AM, Rostislav Pehlivanov wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Rostislav Pehlivanov <atomnu...@gmail.com> >> --- >> tests/fate/atrac.mak | 13 ++++++++++++- >> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/tests/fate/atrac.mak b/tests/fate/atrac.mak >> index acf79a539c..38a5f33150 100644 >> --- a/tests/fate/atrac.mak >> +++ b/tests/fate/atrac.mak >> @@ -33,7 +33,17 @@ fate-atrac3p-2: REF = >> $(SAMPLES)/atrac3p/sonateno14op27-2-cut.pcm >> >> FATE_ATRAC3P-$(call DEMDEC, OMA, ATRAC3P) += $(FATE_ATRAC3P) >> >> -FATE_ATRAC_ALL = $(FATE_ATRAC1-yes) $(FATE_ATRAC3-yes) >> $(FATE_ATRAC3P-yes) >> +FATE_ATRAC9 += fate-atrac9-1 >> +fate-atrac9-1: CMD = pcm -i $(TARGET_SAMPLES)/atrac9/sy_title01.at9 >> +fate-atrac9-1: REF = $(SAMPLES)/atrac9/sy_title01.at9.pcm >> + >> +FATE_ATRAC9 += fate-atrac9-2 >> +fate-atrac9-2: CMD = pcm -i >> $(TARGET_SAMPLES)/atrac9/3_br144_nb10_ib10_g04_bex1_sf1_d1.at9 >> +fate-atrac9-2: REF = >> $(SAMPLES)/atrac9/3_br144_nb10_ib10_g04_bex1_sf1_d1.at9.pcm > > Are these pcm files from a test suit (if any), or at least created > by an official binary decoder?
I believe we added support for codecs when we were not able to produce "official" binary output. > I'd rather avoid adding tests using reference files created by > this same decoder Why not? I agree that in an ideal world, we would only have known correct reference files but this is not the case now (we have always been knowingly testing "wrong" output") and, more important, I don't think fate is a test for correctness but much more a regression test to find unintended changes in FFmpeg's behaviour, don't you agree? Finding such unintended changes even makes sense for decoders that are known not to produce correct output. Good to know that this decoder is bit-exact at least on some platform=-) Carl Eugen _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
