[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Public WebGL] Extension proposal: WEBGL_lose_context

On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Adrienne Walker <enne@google.com> wrote:
El día 15 de diciembre de 2010 15:59, Gregg Tavares (wrk)
<gman@google.com> escribió:
> Here's the other problem I have with this extension.
> #1) For a _javascript_ app to be able to test they handle lost context
>    as pointed out, they can use _javascript_ for this
> #2) To be able to write lost context conformance tests
> #3) To test the browser's handing of lost context.
> The problem with but #2 and #3 is that this extension WILL NOT ACHIEVE

Failing to test absolutely everything does not imply a failure to test
anything.  Again, why are you arguing so strongly against increased
test coverage?

I'm not arguing against increased test coverage. I'm arguing against an extension that will not actually provide any actual test coverage.

The only way you can really test your actual implementation is to wrap all calls to OpenGL (not webgl) and then at some number of calls, start ignoring the calls and returning lost context from eglSwapBuffers or eglMakeCurrent

The extension proposed doesn't do this. It will test almost zero paths through an actual WebGL implementation. 

I'd love to hear any suggestions you have for testing the cases that
you bring up in an automated fashion.  It's frustrating that the only
way so far that we've had to make code that uses glGet more robust was
to have you spend your time performing code inspection at potential
failure sites.