[PATCH resend 1/5] mf/tests: Simplify handling of broken Win7 results.

[Zebediah Figura]

On 4/19/22 10:52, Rémi Bernon wrote:
> On 4/19/22 17:36, Zebediah Figura wrote:
>> On 4/19/22 08:56, Rémi Bernon wrote:
>>> I now think that, though there's no guarantee the modules won't change,
>>> the transform / dmo classes and their tests should perhaps better live
>>> in the same modules where native has them. It is in theory possible that
>>> some applications load them and instantiate the classes directly, and I
>>> don't think it is likely that windows will remove these modules.
>>
>> Maybe, although Windows has moved or deleted codecs in the past. (And 
>> I expect that if an application really does try to manually 
>> instantiate a class, it'll be easy to debug and may not even mean 
>> moving the entire implementation out of winegstreamer.)
>>
>> Beyond that, though, why should the tests live in the same directory 
>> as the implementation? At best this helps make sure that tests are 
>> automatically run by the testbot, but as the person ensuring that all 
>> tests are manually run, I don't particularly see a need to change this 
>> (e.g. I'm still going to need to run tests manually anyway.) If we 
>> really care about this, we should come up with a solution that'll 
>> allow us to automatically run tests in other places where we have 
>> strong inter-module dependencies.
>>
>>>
>>> The main blocker for that is winegstreamer being a dll and the classes
>>> being registered in it. Perhaps it should be a static lib instead, or
>>> expose the unixlib interface as its PE entry points.
>>
>> I don't think we can make winegstreamer a static library, but moving 
>> one or more frontends out of it is possible. It doesn't seem necessary 
>> yet, though.
>>
> 
> 
> I don't know, I'm trying to understand why these patches often stall and 
> to figure a way to make it go smoother.
> 
> I'm not pretending the tests are all good and should be accepted right 
> away but I hope they aren't completely nonsensical either. I still have 
> plenty of tests to add, and I'm happy to maintain them if it's a burden 
> for the modules maintainers.
> 

There may be a confusion wrt review. FWIW, I'm expecting that these 
patches should be reviewed by Nikolay; I don't think there's anything in 
them that's not related to Media Foundation.