[cairo] [PATCH] Don't mention XFAIL_TESTS anymore
chris at chris-wilson.co.uk
Sun Sep 29 04:54:47 PDT 2013
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 01:21:11PM +0200, Uli Schlachter wrote:
> + * XFAIL: lacks implementation in pixman and consequently used as an excuse for
> + * lack of support in other backends
> + */
This is now bogus.
> CAIRO_TEST (extend_pad,
> "Test CAIRO_EXTEND_PAD for surface patterns",
> "extend", /* keywords */
> + * XFAIL: The essential problem here is that the recording-surface has recorded
> + * a sequence of operations with one device transformation, and we attempt to
> + * replay it with another (basically a scale-factor for the falback resolution).
> + * Carl begun to look at this with his chain-of-bugs, but the can of worms is
> + * much bigger. It appears to be a design flaw in the recording-surface that
> + * may spread further... My solution would be to lock Behad and Adrian in a
> + * room, with Carl as a moderator and not let them out until they have come up
> + * with an interface and semantics that actually work. :-)
> + */
This is supposed to work nowadays. (Albeit a persistent bug or two.)
> CAIRO_TEST (fallback_resolution,
> "Check handling of fallback resolutions",
> "fallback", /* keywords */
> + * XFAIL: The cairo_in_fill () function can sometimes produce false positives
> + * when the tessellator produces empty trapezoids and the query point lands
> + * exactly on a trapezoid edge.
> + */
This had better be working now ...
> +/* XFAIL: pixman's fixed point format. */
Works now (or rather we have just pushed the range failure farther out).
> CAIRO_TEST (scale_offset_similar,
> "Tests drawing surfaces under various scales and transforms",
> "surface, scale-offset", /* keywords */
I think we can loose the warnings in all these cases.
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
More information about the cairo