2015-10-26 12:59 GMT-02:00 David Weinehall <david.weinehall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:50:46AM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > > [snip] > >> It's not clear to me, please clarify: now the tests that were >> previously completely hidden will be listed in --list-subtests and >> will be shown as skipped during normal runs? > > Yes. Daniel and I discussed this and he thought listing all test > cases, even the slow ones, would not be an issue, since QA should > be running the default set not the full list > (and for that matter, shouldn't QA know what they are doing too? :P). If that's the case, I really think your patch should not touch kms_frontbuffer_tracking.c. The hidden subtests should not appear on the list. People shouldn't even have to ask themselves why they are getting 800 skips from a single testcase. Those are only for debugging purposes. > >> For kms_frontbuffer_tracking, hidden tests are supposed to be just for >> developers who know what they are doing. I hide them behind a special >> command-line switch that's not used by QA because I don't want QA >> wasting time running those tests. One third of the >> kms_frontbuffer_tracking hidden tests only serve the purpose of >> checking whether there's a bug in kms_frontbuffer_track itself or not. >> For some other hidden tests, they are there just to help better debug >> in case some other non-hidden tests fail. Some other hidden tests are >> 100% useless and superfluous. > > Shouldn't 100% useless and superfluous tests be excised completely? The change would be from "if (case && hidden) continue;" to "if (case) continue;". But that's not the focus. There are still tests that are useful for debugging but useless for QA. > >> QA should only run the non-hidden tests. > > Which is the default behaviour, AFAICT. Then why do you want to expose those tests that you're not even planning to run?? You're kinda implying that QA - or someone else - will run those tests at some point, and I say that, for kms_frontbuffer_tracking, that's a waste of time. Maybe this is the case for the other tests you're touching, but not here. > >> So if some non-hidden test fails, the developers can use the hidden >> tests to help debugging. >> >> Besides, the "if (t.slow)" could have been moved to >> check_test_requirements(), making the code much simpler :) > > Thanks for the suggestion. Will modify the code accordingly. > That change does indeed simplify things quite a bit! > > > Kind regards, David -- Paulo Zanoni _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx