| Summary: | record90-paint-alpha-clip*.xfail.png are not needed | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | cairo | Reporter: | Bryce Harrington <bryce> |
| Component: | general | Assignee: | Chris Wilson <chris> |
| Status: | RESOLVED INVALID | QA Contact: | cairo-bugs mailing list <cairo-bugs> |
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | 1.12.14 | ||
| Hardware: | Other | ||
| OS: | All | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| i915 platform: | i915 features: | ||
| Attachments: | 0001-test-Drop-redundant-record90-paint-alpha-clip-xfail-.patch | ||
|
Description
Bryce Harrington
2013-06-26 23:53:08 UTC
Created attachment 81516 [details] [review] 0001-test-Drop-redundant-record90-paint-alpha-clip-xfail-.patch The two xfail.png's are unnecessary and can be safely dropped. Dropping one of them results in a handful of test cases PASSing, that had been XFAIL previously. The other was already PASSing, but only because the diff was within the threshold; with the XFAIL gone the test now gets an exact match. You've underestimated the severity of any discrepancy in the record tests. (And I fudged the base ref pngs.) (In reply to comment #2) > You've underestimated the severity of any discrepancy in the record tests. > (And I fudged the base ref pngs.) So does this mean that e.g. record90-paint-alpha-clip.base.argb32.ref.png is wrong and the identical file record90-paint-alpha-clip.xfail.png just works around this wrongness? Because in this cases there is no discrepancy at all (according to Bryce). Yes, copying the base output as its ref image in this case was my mistake. |
Use of freedesktop.org services, including Bugzilla, is subject to our Code of Conduct. How we collect and use information is described in our Privacy Policy.