Re: [PATCH 3/4] d3drm/tests: Replace test_Texture. (v2)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Am 2016-04-24 um 16:50 schrieb Aaryaman Vasishta:
+ hr = IDirect3DRMTexture_GetClassName(texture1, &size, cname); + ok(hr == E_INVALIDARG, "GetClassName failed with %x\n", hr); + ok(size == sizeof("Texture") - 1, "wrong size: %u\n", size); + ok(!strcmp(cname, "Texture"), "Expected cname to be \"Texture\", but got \"%s\"\n", cname); The strcmp check here is misleading. The content is a leftover from the previous successful call. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2
iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJXHSYsAAoJEN0/YqbEcdMwVzUQAI5igH0GyGwby4/FQMWpOaDl gXwxyST6BOhwnMfSNSdY/yFT0WqgLxm23+uE1fDsApaENRTEn1JzfSC8/DzeSeEd KHv4QU2KeHlRtLl01CWJclwGgwgdCaP1b1+8mSzxXtWgfjZ2RRtGJON4STzDqLvt G8DYYKJVEAgGQXq2o4N0ZtqRJmmOyOY9iR6Etwz1SoUOe3PgKHwbHEeAJ9YmbbzV zJKkYxdEjuRcyO6Z5xXb5XLV2OBdYD/pqYPMwodQWfJIaht0Ui2GYrSI7Tw1b+DL d/B6M6gYfYm9DAivlL5DflZoyLI4OIm95BRmOgtJZ3EY+qsR0UPuHEybCZnzy0u5 0qQNTGs4+sWecIcFQMmtOqj5wcesV0XPLiRr3nAPMuuIaiBNO3Yyvxu2f/KyLIEa 3E3u6HmJtnyLJPK1btsc1mjsr21LpBA2sQ2AXYV/9wfQyIBhKUdk9gsC9lYNQEvm eVRCtTg4BDIUTxze8lXGqslyio/5IEPr1dX0suX5Rj61tpcDgp6C1MdSiHZkliM3 dTuk7Wu3dfdXCAZfGS/J+QfoQfXwP6NqYhIx6bzY48XGeL/N+m9rGC2lG1mMVROu xW5lgCuZ5/Vt2Z7+qzfEVuI0HxQ+cXO86IEq1RClvszje+1stblLpTQDrAg/hy6G X1q4jNhSjnxRP6Q0r2Ls =39F6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
My bad, that was a copy mistake. Will resend patch. On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 1:31 AM, Stefan Dösinger <stefandoesinger(a)gmail.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Am 2016-04-24 um 16:50 schrieb Aaryaman Vasishta:
+ hr = IDirect3DRMTexture_GetClassName(texture1, &size, cname); + ok(hr == E_INVALIDARG, "GetClassName failed with %x\n", hr); + ok(size == sizeof("Texture") - 1, "wrong size: %u\n", size); + ok(!strcmp(cname, "Texture"), "Expected cname to be \"Texture\", but got \"%s\"\n", cname); The strcmp check here is misleading. The content is a leftover from the previous successful call. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2
iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJXHSYsAAoJEN0/YqbEcdMwVzUQAI5igH0GyGwby4/FQMWpOaDl gXwxyST6BOhwnMfSNSdY/yFT0WqgLxm23+uE1fDsApaENRTEn1JzfSC8/DzeSeEd KHv4QU2KeHlRtLl01CWJclwGgwgdCaP1b1+8mSzxXtWgfjZ2RRtGJON4STzDqLvt G8DYYKJVEAgGQXq2o4N0ZtqRJmmOyOY9iR6Etwz1SoUOe3PgKHwbHEeAJ9YmbbzV zJKkYxdEjuRcyO6Z5xXb5XLV2OBdYD/pqYPMwodQWfJIaht0Ui2GYrSI7Tw1b+DL d/B6M6gYfYm9DAivlL5DflZoyLI4OIm95BRmOgtJZ3EY+qsR0UPuHEybCZnzy0u5 0qQNTGs4+sWecIcFQMmtOqj5wcesV0XPLiRr3nAPMuuIaiBNO3Yyvxu2f/KyLIEa 3E3u6HmJtnyLJPK1btsc1mjsr21LpBA2sQ2AXYV/9wfQyIBhKUdk9gsC9lYNQEvm eVRCtTg4BDIUTxze8lXGqslyio/5IEPr1dX0suX5Rj61tpcDgp6C1MdSiHZkliM3 dTuk7Wu3dfdXCAZfGS/J+QfoQfXwP6NqYhIx6bzY48XGeL/N+m9rGC2lG1mMVROu xW5lgCuZ5/Vt2Z7+qzfEVuI0HxQ+cXO86IEq1RClvszje+1stblLpTQDrAg/hy6G X1q4jNhSjnxRP6Q0r2Ls =39F6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Am 2016-04-24 um 21:49 schrieb Aaryaman Vasishta:
My bad, that was a copy mistake. Will resend patch. Even better than not checking would be to fill the array with some dummy value and checking that the content wasn't touched.
I also recommend to re-order the tests so that failing tests are grouped together. That way you don't have to re-fill the array with a dummy value after a succeeding test. (try 2 sending this. Forgive me if it arrives twice) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJXHT/uAAoJEN0/YqbEcdMwaXkP/iKRAq8nY5GxoETGm9pUZPML xFzwsmiRGidQv+TpXX3e5jAvgljxZMAVdlapZwQlvzdlZQxkjS5DcbcSAwrRDxHB QeRPaneMttPqYEQ7YCqpRt77/UNHtgTxjxF3RXMn1TIutnsTMiO6s4weyb0BbSdP PTdqyAnV9XFqmUZDVcHq/4pvoX/XEnrk5zxkv6+kJo5vqAYLMjRrB4Lu+g8oqgPE 1polBPIcRluYX+VWFNHWVSwmBOlO6MMDa4JLj5WbN/m0i/XQOYD5JjcXeF5cxBwd jZ+8d2wvta8Sgl1oDKAGw+saHEKFBth9+zVa9AfcDUrNgsrq52DYneAXrGnsjfk3 llL7Twz71eLtMo4YgRqLXLYxA5KCJSVvpwn8EaKBoCrUmv/pP/0j0MIZvMGXiQQG /acO/bC2EsgkLW69Tj4D4fymeJNJlk5sZf7QbeNCh61JPRlSZblsSJVt4DkiBG/l 7CKZXqtHOZhfqa1MUGXxEajyv25KoUIcinPtKTFGAv2CLk1dm3hj3FteRJJ7M6Ag FTKN7k+67wJZUIrHLXYBWn1xjTmoYnbL5FHrDlGsEkTt655hEyhgzoL/e4XVnWdl Hh9F9ntrGN487AX6bD5zNMf0oBizVhDPyXzFHXIc/+pl3PYceexhXN0REJ61NAmJ qPqkXyPFigb34w/IzuVU =n5WM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Right, makes sense. I will resend this patch with the changes today. Fwiw, I've intentionally not added tests in patch 4/4 to validate the image struct in InitFromImage right now. I will include them in the implementation patch for this function. I'll be using a helper function which would validate the struct and return a BOOL, which would be re-used for CreateTexture as well. Cheers, Aaryaman On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 3:21 AM, Stefan Dösinger <stefandoesinger(a)gmail.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Am 2016-04-24 um 21:49 schrieb Aaryaman Vasishta:
My bad, that was a copy mistake. Will resend patch. Even better than not checking would be to fill the array with some dummy value and checking that the content wasn't touched.
I also recommend to re-order the tests so that failing tests are grouped together. That way you don't have to re-fill the array with a dummy value after a succeeding test.
(try 2 sending this. Forgive me if it arrives twice)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2
iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJXHT/uAAoJEN0/YqbEcdMwaXkP/iKRAq8nY5GxoETGm9pUZPML xFzwsmiRGidQv+TpXX3e5jAvgljxZMAVdlapZwQlvzdlZQxkjS5DcbcSAwrRDxHB QeRPaneMttPqYEQ7YCqpRt77/UNHtgTxjxF3RXMn1TIutnsTMiO6s4weyb0BbSdP PTdqyAnV9XFqmUZDVcHq/4pvoX/XEnrk5zxkv6+kJo5vqAYLMjRrB4Lu+g8oqgPE 1polBPIcRluYX+VWFNHWVSwmBOlO6MMDa4JLj5WbN/m0i/XQOYD5JjcXeF5cxBwd jZ+8d2wvta8Sgl1oDKAGw+saHEKFBth9+zVa9AfcDUrNgsrq52DYneAXrGnsjfk3 llL7Twz71eLtMo4YgRqLXLYxA5KCJSVvpwn8EaKBoCrUmv/pP/0j0MIZvMGXiQQG /acO/bC2EsgkLW69Tj4D4fymeJNJlk5sZf7QbeNCh61JPRlSZblsSJVt4DkiBG/l 7CKZXqtHOZhfqa1MUGXxEajyv25KoUIcinPtKTFGAv2CLk1dm3hj3FteRJJ7M6Ag FTKN7k+67wJZUIrHLXYBWn1xjTmoYnbL5FHrDlGsEkTt655hEyhgzoL/e4XVnWdl Hh9F9ntrGN487AX6bD5zNMf0oBizVhDPyXzFHXIc/+pl3PYceexhXN0REJ61NAmJ qPqkXyPFigb34w/IzuVU =n5WM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (2)
-
Aaryaman Vasishta -
Stefan Dösinger