On 8/27/12 2:40 AM, "Jose Barragan" <jose.barra...@codeoscopic.com> wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> Regards the mustella/mx resolution, I just added my baseline change, please
> check it out...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jose.
Hi Jose,
I've been looking at your proposed changes in more detail. I saw one thing
we probably need to explain better:
In MaskEffect_Properties.mxml you changed the AssertPixelValue value from 0
to "#FFFFFF". I suspect the correct thing to do would be to change the
coordinates of the pixel being tested because the tests seem to have a
predominately white background and I believe this assert is trying to prove
that something resized to a position and covered the white background with
something black.
This means you have to actually take the time to understand the goal of the
test and not just change values so the errors go away. There are some other
tests with AssertPixelValue modifications that need another look.
Other changes I saw were changing paths to assets from "../../..." to
"assets/../../../..." which end up pointing to the same folder, so I don't
understand why that change is proposed. Also, the folder is really called
"Assets" (capital 'A'): it is small 'a' in some of the files, but really, I
don't think it should be changed there at all.
Finally, I haven't looked at your proposed baseline changes, but I did
notice that your patch did not include some baselines in
mx/effects/Effect/seek that are not matching up for me. Are the
mx/effects/Effect tests running without errors? I'm seeing plenty of errors
when I run these tests.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
