[Bug 55290] New: quartz:videorenderer - test_video_window_position() sometimes gets a bad height in Wine
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55290
Bug ID: 55290 Summary: quartz:videorenderer - test_video_window_position() sometimes gets a bad height in Wine Product: Wine Version: unspecified Hardware: x86-64 OS: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: quartz Assignee: wine-bugs@winehq.org Reporter: fgouget@codeweavers.com Distribution: ---
quartz:videorenderer - test_video_window_position() sometimes gets a bad height in Wine:
videorenderer.c:1957: Test failed: Got height 492. videorenderer.c:1963: Test failed: Got height 492. videorenderer.c:1968: Test failed: Got window bottom 492. videorenderer.c:1984: Test failed: Got height 492. videorenderer.c:1990: Test failed: Got height 492. videorenderer.c:1995: Test failed: Got window bottom 492.
See https://test.winehq.org/data/patterns.html#quartz:videorenderer
This is independent of bitness and happens on the TestBot VMs as well as my desktop and Remi's machines, but not in the GitLab CI's Debian environment.
There must be some external factor influencing how often it happens because it happened systematically on my desktop from 2022-12-12 to 2023-01-09 and again from 2023-01-13 to 2023-02-21 while it did not happen more frequently on all other platforms. Currently it also happens a lot more frequently on Remi's machines.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55290
François Gouget fgouget@codeweavers.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |source, testcase
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55290
--- Comment #1 from François Gouget fgouget@codeweavers.com --- This actually sometimes also happens when running the 64-bit test on w864 but in that case it also gets bad width errors:
videorenderer.c:1954: Test failed: Got width 652. videorenderer.c:1957: Test failed: Got height 492. videorenderer.c:1962: Test failed: Got width 652. videorenderer.c:1963: Test failed: Got height 492. videorenderer.c:1967: Test failed: Got window right 652. videorenderer.c:1968: Test failed: Got window bottom 492. videorenderer.c:1981: Test failed: Got width 652. videorenderer.c:1984: Test failed: Got height 492. videorenderer.c:1989: Test failed: Got width 652. videorenderer.c:1990: Test failed: Got height 492. videorenderer.c:1994: Test failed: Got window right 662. videorenderer.c:1995: Test failed: Got window bottom 492. videorenderer.c:2008: Test failed: Got width 652. videorenderer.c:2016: Test failed: Got width 652. videorenderer.c:2021: Test failed: Got window right 662.
So far there are only 2 known instances of this failure on w864: * 2022-12-15 win81_newtb-w864-64 * 2023-07-03 win81_newtb-w864-64
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55290
--- Comment #2 from François Gouget fgouget@codeweavers.com --- And a similar height issue happened on Windows 10 and 11:
videorenderer.c:1957: Test failed: Got height 500. videorenderer.c:1963: Test failed: Got height 500. videorenderer.c:1968: Test failed: Got window bottom 500. videorenderer.c:1984: Test failed: Got height 500. videorenderer.c:1990: Test failed: Got height 500. videorenderer.c:1995: Test failed: Got window bottom 500.
There are 8 known instances for this case: * 2023-02-07 win22H2_newtb-w1064-tsign-64 * 2023-04-13 win22H2_fgtb-w10pro64-rx550-64 * 2023-05-10 w1121H2_newtb-w11pro64-amd-64 * 2023-05-11 w1121H2_newtb-w11pro64-amd-64 * 2023-05-12 w1121H2_newtb-w11pro64-amd-64_1 * 2023-05-12 w1121H2_newtb-w11pro64-amd-64_2 * 2023-05-12 w1121H2_newtb-w11pro64-amd-64_3 * 2023-05-12 w1121H2_newtb-w11pro64-amd-64
This shows that this is not specific to the AMD graphics card and also that the distribution is not random: the test failed systematically on w11pro64-amd between 2023-05-10 and 2023-05-12.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55290
François Gouget fgouget@codeweavers.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OS|Linux |Windows
--- Comment #3 from François Gouget fgouget@codeweavers.com --- And this also happened 4 times on my desktop but with a smaller than expected height this time. As a result more tests failed:
videorenderer.c:1957: Test failed: Got height 412. videorenderer.c:1963: Test failed: Got height 412. videorenderer.c:1968: Test failed: Got window bottom 412. videorenderer.c:1984: Test failed: Got height 412. videorenderer.c:1990: Test failed: Got height 412. videorenderer.c:1995: Test failed: Got window bottom 412. [...] videorenderer.c:2614: Test failed: Got height 378. videorenderer.c:2620: Test failed: Got height 378. videorenderer.c:2626: Test failed: Got height 378. videorenderer.c:2632: Test failed: Got height 378. videorenderer.c:2638: Test failed: Got height 378. videorenderer.c:2648: Test failed: Got height 378. videorenderer.c:2654: Test failed: Got height 378. videorenderer.c:2690: Test failed: Got height 378.
This may be explained by a previous test that changes the screen resolution and fails to restore it. But could that also explain the cases where we get a bigger width / height than the expected 640x480?
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55290
--- Comment #4 from François Gouget fgouget@codeweavers.com --- Dates of the 412 height failures: * 2023-02-02 linux_fg-deb64-t32 * 2023-06-28 linux_fg-deb64-t32 * 2023-06-28 linux_fg-deb64-wow64 * 2023-07-07 linux_fg-deb64-t32
-
WineHQ Bugzilla