[10/11] ddraw/tests: Add assorted D3D3 DrawPrimitive/visual tests.

[Octavian Voicu]

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Stefan Dösinger <stefandoesinger at gmx.at> wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 November 2011 01:14:22 Octavian Voicu wrote:
>> The idea behind using triangles was to fit everything in one screen so
>> I could debug it visually very easily. I'm thinking I can still have
>> that if I draw full-screen quads in a loop, like you suggest, then
>> blit one small rectangle to the primary surface, in different
>> positions for each test.
> I don't think that's necessary, I found those one-quad screens easier to debug
> than multi-quads, although that may be a matter of taste.

It gets a bit harder when you have more than a couple of tests,
because you have to follow the sequence of flashes, but the message
from the failures should be descriptive enough.

>> I think
>> we should cover special error cases if there are any (that is, if
>> D3DERR_INVALIDVERTEXTYPE is not returned for D3DVT_ constants).
> Well, you can't test them. D3DVT_LVERTEX is 2, and D3DFVF_XYZ is 2. The number
> 2 doesn't have any tags attached, so what you'd be testing is how
> drawPrimitive responds to D3DFVF_RESERVED0, not what it does with D3DVT_*
> enums.
>
> The statement in the SDK doesn't make sense with that in mind.

I thought D3DVT_ values interpreted as FVFs didn't make sense. It
seems Windows accepts those values and returns D3D_OK, so I'll drop
those tests.

>  > About the ddraw/visual tests: I think we need one structure for each
>> of d3d, d3d2, d3d3, d3d7, where to have most of the things we store
>> globally or in local vars now, and make the create/release functions
>> work with that.
> Yes, I was about to write something like that as a response to the cleanup
> patches.

Is it OK to leave them like this for now? That kind of refactoring is
going to make this patch series endless.

Octavian