d3dx9_36 [patch 2/2]: Add tests for D3DXCreateBox
matteo.mystral at gmail.com
Thu Mar 31 12:56:10 CDT 2011
2011/3/31 David Adam <david.adam.cnrs at gmail.com>:
> 2011/3/31 Matteo Bruni <matteo.mystral at gmail.com>
>> 2011/3/31 David Adam <david.adam.cnrs at gmail.com>:
>> > + /* Check the width */
>> > + v1 = *((D3DXVECTOR3*)(data+19*num_bytes_per_vertex));
>> > + v2 = *((D3DXVECTOR3*)(data+18*num_bytes_per_vertex));
>> > + length = D3DXVec3Length(D3DXVec3Subtract(&v2,&v1,&v2));
>> > + ok(fabs(length-10.0f)<admitted_error, "Width expected= 10.0,
>> > received %f\n", length);
>> This is not really different from the previous version: you are still
>> making assumptions about the vertex ordering (in this specific case,
>> you're assuming that vertices 18 and 19 have different X coordinate
>> but the same Y and Z coordinate values).
> I have an application (Geoprofs) qui use the specific ordering of the
> vertex. So if we implement randomly the vertex, it will not work.
Really? Well, that makes my original point mostly moot.
Still, I don't think the current tests are very meaningful. Do you
know exactly what that application needs? You could test for that
specific thing, so if, for example, the application requires the left
face to be the first one, you could test just for that.
>> What I was proposing was something like this:
>> for (i = 0; i < num_vertices; i++)
>> float *vertex_data = data + i * num_bytes_per_vertex;
>> if (vertex_data < xmin) xmin = vertex_data;
>> if (vertex_data > xmax) xmax = vertex_data;
>> if (vertex_data < ymin) ymin = vertex_data;
>> if (vertex_data > ymax) ymax = vertex_data;
>> if (vertex_data < zmin) zmin = vertex_data;
>> if (vertex_data > zmax) zmax = vertex_data;
>> and then proceed to check whether the minimum and maximum values you
>> got match the expected ones. This code snippet can certainly be
>> improved, it is only to show you what I meant.
>> Also, again, please try to fix the whitespaces...
> People changed the original style of the file. So, Which one must I keep ?
Arguably it is better to adopt the style used for most recent code in
wined3d or d3dcompiler_43. But, regardless of that, you should at
least be consistent in the same function. You are mixing 0 or 1 spaces
after commas, spaces or no spaces around operators and stuff like
> Thanks for your advices ;)
More information about the wine-devel