cc: Add tests for DisplayListRasterSource.

cc: Add tests for DisplayListRasterSource.

This mimics (most of) the tests from PicturePileImpl but for the
display list backend to verify gather pixel refs and raster
behaviour. Also adds a new partial raster test.

This gives me a framework to write unit tests for culling display
items.

R=enne, vmpstr
BUG=487387
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=tryserver.blink:linux_blink_rel

Committed: https://crrev.com/a5ac8cc9f06188bebd8977d21865244fa3b78fb3
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#332676}

[danakj, 2015-06-03 00:40:45]

Added a test for partial raster too!

[danakj, 2015-06-03 17:35:42]

Removed the scale test

[danakj, 2015-06-03 17:37:45]

Patchset #4 (id:60001) has been deleted

[vmpstr, 2015-06-03 18:31:21]

Update the description as well please.

I would somewhat prefer to keep the scaled test, but just update the
expectations if we don't pad? That way it's at least documented that this is
expected behavior. Wdyt?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1146813012/diff/80001/cc/playback/raster_sour...
File cc/playback/raster_source_helper.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1146813012/diff/80001/cc/playback/raster_sour...
cc/playback/raster_source_helper.cc:91: LOG(ERROR) << content_rect.ToString();
Remove please.

[danakj, 2015-06-03 18:40:19]

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:31 AM, <vmpstr@chromium.org> wrote:

> Update the description as well please.
>
> I would somewhat prefer to keep the scaled test, but just update the
> expectations if we don't pad? That way it's at least documented that this
> is
> expected behavior. Wdyt?
>

I can't write the test in a very reliable way. With .18 of a px skia
doesn't sample from the recording. With .25 it does. It's weird to test.


>
>
>
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1146813012/diff/80001/cc/playback/raster_sour...
> File cc/playback/raster_source_helper.cc (right):
>
>
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1146813012/diff/80001/cc/playback/raster_sour...
> cc/playback/raster_source_helper.cc:91: LOG(ERROR) <<
> content_rect.ToString();
> Remove please.
>
> https://codereview.chromium.org/1146813012/
>

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.

[danakj, 2015-06-03 18:40:58]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1146813012/diff/80001/cc/playback/raster_sour...
File cc/playback/raster_source_helper.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1146813012/diff/80001/cc/playback/raster_sour...
cc/playback/raster_source_helper.cc:91: LOG(ERROR) << content_rect.ToString();
On 2015/06/03 18:31:20, vmpstr wrote:
> Remove please.

Done.

[vmpstr, 2015-06-03 18:48:59]

lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/1146813012/diff/100001/cc/playback/display_li...
File cc/playback/display_list_raster_source_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1146813012/diff/100001/cc/playback/display_li...
cc/playback/display_list_raster_source_unittest.cc:410: if (expect_black) {
nit: I think this test is correct, but the paranoid me wants to ask: can you add
some sort of a "had_black_pixels" and "had_white_pixels" bools and EXPECT_TRUE
for both after the loops (just to make sure both branches are executed)?

[enne (OOO), 2015-06-03 18:58:37]

lgtm

[danakj, 2015-06-03 19:00:28]

The CQ bit was checked by danakj@chromium.org

[danakj, 2015-06-03 19:00:28]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from vmpstr@chromium.org,
enne@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1146813012/#ps120001
(title: "displaytest: .")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-03 19:01:06]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1146813012/120001

[danakj, 2015-06-03 19:10:33]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1146813012/diff/100001/cc/playback/display_li...
File cc/playback/display_list_raster_source_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1146813012/diff/100001/cc/playback/display_li...
cc/playback/display_list_raster_source_unittest.cc:410: if (expect_black) {
On 2015/06/03 18:48:59, vmpstr wrote:
> nit: I think this test is correct, but the paranoid me wants to ask: can you
add
> some sort of a "had_black_pixels" and "had_white_pixels" bools and EXPECT_TRUE
> for both after the loops (just to make sure both branches are executed)?

Done.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-03 20:14:50]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-03 20:14:52]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  linux_chromium_asan_rel_ng on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_chromium_...)

[danakj, 2015-06-03 20:15:55]

The CQ bit was checked by danakj@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-03 20:16:36]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1146813012/120001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-03 20:59:04]

Committed patchset #6 (id:120001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-06-03 20:59:54]

Patchset 6 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/a5ac8cc9f06188bebd8977d21865244fa3b78fb3
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#332676}