[Piglit] [PATCH 04/15] arb_direct_state_access: Testing NamedBufferData.

Laura Ekstrand laura at jlekstrand.net
Thu Feb 19 15:01:22 PST 2015

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 <imirkin at alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Martin Peres
> <martin.peres at linux.intel.com> 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.]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/piglit/attachments/20150219/74b2e872/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Piglit mailing list