Re: [PATCH 2/7] d3d11/tests: Port test_create_texture2d() from d3d10core.
On 10 August 2015 at 01:11, Józef Kucia <jkucia(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
--- configure | 3 +- configure.ac | 3 +- It's not a problem to include these, but it's not necessary either. Alexandre will generate these with tools/make_makefiles before committing the patch.
+ if (!(device = create_device())) + { + skip("Failed to create device, skipping tests.\n"); + return; + } + There's nothing necessarily wrong with these tests, but you may want to consider waiting with submitting them until after they pass. Right now you're depending on create_device() to fail so the tests are skipped, but that means that once D3D11CreateDevice() is implemented you'd need to add todo_wine's and error handling to every test.
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Henri Verbeet <hverbeet(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10 August 2015 at 01:11, Józef Kucia <jkucia(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
--- configure | 3 +- configure.ac | 3 +- It's not a problem to include these, but it's not necessary either. Alexandre will generate these with tools/make_makefiles before committing the patch.
+ if (!(device = create_device())) + { + skip("Failed to create device, skipping tests.\n"); + return; + } + There's nothing necessarily wrong with these tests, but you may want to consider waiting with submitting them until after they pass. Right now you're depending on create_device() to fail so the tests are skipped, but that means that once D3D11CreateDevice() is implemented you'd need to add todo_wine's and error handling to every test.
The implementation of D3D11CreateDevice could be delayed until these tests pass. ID3D11Device could still be exposed through ID3D10Device. However, it might be more convenient to include the tests after they pass. I don't mind resubmitting them later. How should be approached other tests which potentially influence decision how to organize D3D10 and D3D11 code? For example, tests which check implemented interfaces for D3D11Device. Is it preferred to submit them before implementation?
On 10 August 2015 at 11:01, Józef Kucia <joseph.kucia(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The implementation of D3D11CreateDevice could be delayed until these tests pass. ID3D11Device could still be exposed through ID3D10Device. However, it Yeah, but you'd still basically have the same issue. I.e., when you make create_device() work in some way, you'd have to adjust all the tests because e.g. ID3D11Device_CreateTexture2D() returns E_NOTIMPL.
How should be approached other tests which potentially influence decision how to organize D3D10 and D3D11 code? For example, tests which check implemented interfaces for D3D11Device. Is it preferred to submit them before implementation? I have no particular preference either way, but in principle it's fine to submit those before the implementation.
participants (2)
-
Henri Verbeet -
Józef Kucia