[PATCH 06/42] tests: update for touch support

[Peter Hutterer]

On 16/12/11 21:56 , walter harms wrote:
>
>
> Am 16.12.2011 12:12, schrieb Peter Hutterer:
>> On 16/12/11 20:56 , walter harms wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 15.12.2011 04:01, schrieb Peter Hutterer:
>>>> Touch event mask must be set for all three event types.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer<peter.hutterer at who-t.net>
>>>> ---
>>>>    test/xi2/protocol-xipassivegrabdevice.c |    2 +-
>>>>    test/xi2/protocol-xiselectevents.c      |   38
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>>>>    2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/test/xi2/protocol-xipassivegrabdevice.c
>>>> b/test/xi2/protocol-xipassivegrabdevice.c
>>>> index 89ffc3d..b405556 100644
>>>> --- a/test/xi2/protocol-xipassivegrabdevice.c
>>>> +++ b/test/xi2/protocol-xipassivegrabdevice.c
>>>> @@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ static void test_XIPassiveGrabDevice(void)
>>>>        request->deviceid = XIAllMasterDevices;
>>>>
>>>>        printf("Testing invalid grab types\n");
>>>> -    for (i = XIGrabtypeFocusIn + 1; i<   0xFF; i++)
>>>> +    for (i = XIGrabtypeTouchBegin + 1; i<   0xFF; i++)
>>>>        {
>>>>            request->grab_type = i;
>>>>            request_XIPassiveGrabDevice(&client_request, request,
>>>> BadValue, request->grab_type);
>>>> diff --git a/test/xi2/protocol-xiselectevents.c
>>>> b/test/xi2/protocol-xiselectevents.c
>>>> index 4eaf839..0390858 100644
>>>> --- a/test/xi2/protocol-xiselectevents.c
>>>> +++ b/test/xi2/protocol-xiselectevents.c
>>>> @@ -125,6 +125,28 @@ static void
>>>> request_XISelectEvent(xXISelectEventsReq *req, int error)
>>>>        assert(rc == error);
>>>>    }
>>>>
>>>> +static void _set_bit(unsigned char *bits, int bit)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    SetBit(bits, bit);
>>>> +    if (bit>= XI_TouchBegin&&   bit<= XI_TouchOwnership)
>>>> +    {
>>>> +        SetBit(bits, XI_TouchBegin);
>>>> +        SetBit(bits, XI_TouchUpdate);
>>>> +        SetBit(bits, XI_TouchEnd);
>>>> +    }
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> So far i understand you want to avoid setting already set bits.
>>> Would it hurt to set them again ?
>>
>> if any of the four XI_Touch* is set, begin/update/end must be set.
>> setting them twice doesn't hurt, especially not in a test. And we have a
>> test in input.c that makes sure that SetBit on masks works as expected,
>> iirc.
>>
>>
>>>> +static void _clear_bit(unsigned char *bits, int bit)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    ClearBit(bits, bit);
>>>> +    if (bit>= XI_TouchBegin&&   bit<= XI_TouchOwnership)
>>>> +    {
>>>> +        ClearBit(bits, XI_TouchBegin);
>>>> +        ClearBit(bits, XI_TouchUpdate);
>>>> +        ClearBit(bits, XI_TouchEnd);
>>>> +    }
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>
>>> The naming is unfortunate.
>>
>> huh?
>>
>>
>
> you have a ClearBit(bits, bit); that set bit in bits, right ?
> (if not the case folds here)
> now you have a _clear_bit() that behaves differently as is tests
> the bit argument, lets says in a future release XI_TouchBegin will
> be>XI_TouchOwnership. Would you expekt that _clear_bit is responsible ?
>
> Just call .. _clear_xi_bits() (no idea if that is a good name, neither it
> is a matter of live and dead but if some odd things happen then they should
> show up in tests).

uhm, this is a test. more specifically, it's a test for the XI2-specific 
XISelectEvents request.


>>>>    static void request_XISelectEvents_masks(xXISelectEventsReq *req)
>>>>    {
>>>>        int i, j;
>>>> @@ -157,9 +179,9 @@ static void
>>>> request_XISelectEvents_masks(xXISelectEventsReq *req)
>>>>            memset(bits, 0, mask->mask_len * 4);
>>>>            for (j = 0; j<= XI2LASTEVENT; j++)
>>>>            {
>>>> -            SetBit(bits, j);
>>>> +            _set_bit(bits, j);
>>>>                request_XISelectEvent(req, Success);
>>>> -            ClearBit(bits, j);
>>>> +            _clear_bit(bits, j);
>>>>            }
>>>>
>>>>            /* Test 2:
>>>> @@ -173,7 +195,7 @@ static void
>>>> request_XISelectEvents_masks(xXISelectEventsReq *req)
>>>>
>>>>            for (j = 0; j<= XI2LASTEVENT; j++)
>>>>            {
>>>> -            SetBit(bits, j);
>>>> +            _set_bit(bits, j);
>>>>                request_XISelectEvent(req, Success);
>>>>            }
>>>>
>>>> @@ -187,9 +209,9 @@ static void
>>>> request_XISelectEvents_masks(xXISelectEventsReq *req)
>>>>
>>>>            for (j = XI2LASTEVENT + 1; j<   mask->mask_len * 4; j++)
>>>>            {
>>>> -            SetBit(bits, j);
>>>> +            _set_bit(bits, j);
>>>>                request_XISelectEvent(req, BadValue);
>>>> -            ClearBit(bits, j);
>>>> +            _clear_bit(bits, j);
>>>>            }
>>>>
>>>>            /* Test 4:
>>>> @@ -200,7 +222,7 @@ static void
>>>> request_XISelectEvents_masks(xXISelectEventsReq *req)
>>>>            memset(bits, 0, mask->mask_len * 4);
>>>>            for (j = 0; j<= XI2LASTEVENT; j++)
>>>>            {
>>>> -            SetBit(bits, j);
>>>> +            _set_bit(bits, j);
>>>>                request_XISelectEvent(req, Success);
>>>>            }
>>>>
>>>> @@ -227,8 +249,8 @@ static void
>>>> request_XISelectEvents_masks(xXISelectEventsReq *req)
>>>>            mask->mask_len = (nmasks + 3)/4;
>>>>            memset(bits, 0, mask->mask_len * 4);
>>>>            for (j = 0; j<= XI2LASTEVENT; j++)
>>>> -            SetBit(bits, j);
>>>> -        ClearBit(bits, XI_HierarchyChanged);
>>>> +            _set_bit(bits, j);
>>>> +        _clear_bit(bits, XI_HierarchyChanged);
>>>>            for (j = 1; j<   6; j++)
>>>>            {
>>>>                mask->deviceid = j;
>>
>>