Hi. Sorry, my fault. Actually I thought i was sending the messages to the mailing list, but by mistake i only sent them to martin and alex. I send the messages again.
============ Email 1 ==================
2013/10/10 Alex Valavanis <valavanisalex@...400...>:
Well, I guess the easiest thing would be to organise the svg input files for the rendering tests into two separate subfolders in known-pass/testcases and known-fail/testcases. We can then just tell the test runner to look in the appropriate folder:
# cat run-svg-tests-good runtests.py --directory=known-pass
# cat run-svg-tests-bad runtests.py --directory=known-fail
Ok, if I understood correctly, the idea here is to have known pass tests, and known fail tests. All test with the respective pass/fail test.
If a known pass test changes from the reference image then we can assume we have a regression.
If a known fail test changes from the reference we might have solved the problem, but since we can't automatically decide if it is already solved, we would need to check manually and add it to the known pass test if required.
That sounds to me like a good compromise between automation and some manual work. The regressions would be detected automatically but the improvements would need to be checked manually.
Thoughts about this ?
============ Email 2 ==================
2013/10/10 Martin Owens <doctormo@...400...>:
On Thu, 2013-10-10 at 16:14 +0100, Alex Valavanis wrote:
two separate executable scripts
Not yet. And while the python is pretty hairy (needs some code review) it should be possible to make it do what you want without too many issues.
Guiu, Tav; what do you think? Would it be easy enough to modify and would you like to patch it or should I?
Yes, I think I could be able to modify the code to fit the current code to be added to the testings. I sent a message trying to shade some light on what needs to be done and trying to define the problem exactly. If we're happy with what I propose, I can start making the changes soon. There is some hairy code and rewriting some can do very good in the readibility of the code.
Guiu
Martin,
========= Message 3 ==============
Ok, sorry for sending that much messages, I just wanted to make a little summary about the work that would be needed.
1. Get the SVG 1.1 Second edition test files and extract the text. Jasper, in the link [1] you sent the files are from the Second edition of the test suite or the first one ? Are they up to date ?
btw, I do actually think that removing the text is good, because if there is a problem with the text rendering code, it would affect a lot of tests. Removing the text from the tests we can isolate better what we are testing with each file.
2. Then, we would need to manually separate the tests in pass/fail.
3. Implement the code as explained in the message I sent before. Then add it to the tests in the current inkscape trunk to be executed every time someone makes a commit.
4. Then a way to make this information public would need to be done. But we can discuss this while the first points are made.
[1] https://svn.code.sf.net/p/inkscape/code/gsoc-testsuite/tester/testcases/svgt...
If we're happy with that and we agree that this is a good solution, I can start working on this soon.
Cheers Guiu Rocafort
I'm sorry about that Guiu
2013/10/11 Martin Owens <doctormo@...400...>:
On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 01:01 +0200, Guiu Rocafort wrote:
If we're happy with that and we agree that this is a good solution, I can start working on this soon.
You need to send this information to the devel mailing list. I recommend compiling your two emails into one and replying to all as it fits to have this sent to everyone.
Martin,