Web Animations: Add InterpolableValue hierarchy.

Source/core/animation/InterpolableValueTest.cpp

Index: Source/core/animation/InterpolableValueTest.cpp
diff --git a/Source/core/animation/InterpolableValueTest.cpp b/Source/core/animation/InterpolableValueTest.cpp
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..aa8c730df4c965e5979e01162ae2eb06915f46ec
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Source/core/animation/InterpolableValueTest.cpp
@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
+// Copyright 2014 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.
+// Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be
+// found in the LICENSE file.
+
+#include "config.h"
+#include "core/animation/InterpolableValue.h"
+
+#include <gtest/gtest.h>
+
+namespace WebCore {
+
+namespace {
+
+double interpolateNumbers(double a, double b, double progress)
+{
+    return toInterpolableNumber(InterpolableNumber::create(a)->interpolate(*InterpolableNumber::create(b).get(), progress).get())->value();
+}
+
+double interpolateBools(bool a, bool b, double progress)
+{
+    return toInterpolableBool(InterpolableBool::create(a)->interpolate(*InterpolableBool::create(b).get(), progress).get())->value();
+}
+
+}
+
+TEST(AnimationInterpolableValueTest, InterpolateNumbers)
+{
+    EXPECT_FLOAT_EQ(126, interpolateNumbers(42, 0, -2));
+    EXPECT_FLOAT_EQ(42, interpolateNumbers(42, 0, 0));
+    EXPECT_FLOAT_EQ(29.4, interpolateNumbers(42, 0, 0.3));
+    EXPECT_FLOAT_EQ(21, interpolateNumbers(42, 0, 0.5));
+    EXPECT_FLOAT_EQ(0, interpolateNumbers(42, 0, 1));
+    EXPECT_FLOAT_EQ(-21, interpolateNumbers(42, 0, 1.5));
+}
+
+TEST(AnimationInterpolableValueTest, InterpolateBools)
+{
+    EXPECT_FALSE(interpolateBools(false, true, -1));
+    EXPECT_FALSE(interpolateBools(false, true, 0));
+    EXPECT_FALSE(interpolateBools(false, true, 0.3));
+    EXPECT_TRUE(interpolateBools(false, true, 0.5));
+    EXPECT_TRUE(interpolateBools(false, true, 1));
+    EXPECT_TRUE(interpolateBools(false, true, 2));
+}
+
+TEST(AnimationInterpolableValueTest, SimpleList)
+{
+    OwnPtr<InterpolableList> listA = InterpolableList::create(3);
+    listA->set(0, InterpolableNumber::create(0));
+    listA->set(1, InterpolableNumber::create(42));
+    listA->set(2, InterpolableNumber::create(20.5));
+
+    OwnPtr<InterpolableList> listB = InterpolableList::create(3);
+    listB->set(0, InterpolableNumber::create(100));
+    listB->set(1, InterpolableNumber::create(-200));
+    listB->set(2, InterpolableNumber::create(300));
+
+    OwnPtr<InterpolableValue> result = listA->interpolate(*listB.get(), 0.3);
+    InterpolableList* outList = toInterpolableList(result.get());
+    EXPECT_FLOAT_EQ(30, toInterpolableNumber(outList->get(0))->value());
+    EXPECT_FLOAT_EQ(-30.6, toInterpolableNumber(outList->get(1))->value());
+    EXPECT_FLOAT_EQ(104.35, toInterpolableNumber(outList->get(2))->value());

[alancutter (OOO until 2018), 2014/02/26 00:42:29]

Should these list tests be testing more than one interpolation fraction value?

[shans, 2014/02/26 21:24:20]

As discussed, this is sufficient.

+}
+
+TEST(AnimationInterpolableValueTest, NestedList)
+{
+    OwnPtr<InterpolableList> listA = InterpolableList::create(3);
+    listA->set(0, InterpolableNumber::create(0));
+    OwnPtr<InterpolableList> subListA = InterpolableList::create(1);
+    subListA->set(0, InterpolableNumber::create(100));
+    listA->set(1, subListA.release());
+    listA->set(2, InterpolableBool::create(false));
+
+    OwnPtr<InterpolableList> listB = InterpolableList::create(3);
+    listB->set(0, InterpolableNumber::create(100));
+    OwnPtr<InterpolableList> subListB = InterpolableList::create(1);
+    subListB->set(0, InterpolableNumber::create(50));
+    listB->set(1, subListB.release());
+    listB->set(2, InterpolableBool::create(true));
+
+    OwnPtr<InterpolableValue> result = listA->interpolate(*listB.get(), 0.5);
+    InterpolableList* outList = toInterpolableList(result.get());
+    EXPECT_FLOAT_EQ(50, toInterpolableNumber(outList->get(0))->value());
+    EXPECT_FLOAT_EQ(75, toInterpolableNumber(toInterpolableList(outList->get(1))->get(0))->value());
+    EXPECT_TRUE(toInterpolableBool(outList->get(2))->value());

[alancutter (OOO until 2018), 2014/02/26 00:42:29]

Overloading [] might make this cleaner here and in future uses of
InterpolableLists, thoughts?

[shans, 2014/02/26 21:24:20]

I don't think it is worth it, as InterpolableValues will only be used from
Interpolation.

+}
+
+}