The general consensus I've gotten [not specific to this particular test] is that Piglit tests should mostly be functional in nature. Conformance (as in the types of errors thrown) is tested by the official Khronos conformance suites. For instance, before I pushed arb_dsa texture objects, Anuj ran gles-3.0 conformance suite on it.
For DSA, when a completely new function is added (such as Create*), I tend to add some conformance tests for that. (Especially since there isn't much else you can test with Create* if it is the only DSA entry point you have for that type of object.) For the others, since they share so much code (especially for error-checking) with the traditional entry points, I assume that other tests are doing a more thorough check. So I mainly add a test or two that tests the function of the new entry point. On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Ilia Mirkin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Martin Peres > <[email protected]> wrote: > [...] > > and you only test the differences you introduced in mesa but is this > really > > how > > we are supposed to write the tests? > > > > I really don't know, hence why I am asking. > > In case there's any doubt, no, you're supposed to write self-contained > tests that don't in any way rely on mesa impl details, or what other > tests are out there for unrelated features. [And I say this without > making any sort of judgement on the actual test being discussed.] >
_______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
