Index: cc/layers/picture_layer_impl_unittest.cc |
diff --git a/cc/layers/picture_layer_impl_unittest.cc b/cc/layers/picture_layer_impl_unittest.cc |
index bb61f4e4deae11b9a0dcdd9f649f0082bfe4608a..45180f3a61d72cd442126578020bd9cc5886ee71 100644 |
--- a/cc/layers/picture_layer_impl_unittest.cc |
+++ b/cc/layers/picture_layer_impl_unittest.cc |
@@ -1984,13 +1984,18 @@ TEST_F(PictureLayerImplTest, LayerEvictionTileIterator) { |
std::set<Tile*> all_tiles_set(all_tiles.begin(), all_tiles.end()); |
bool mark_required = false; |
- for (std::vector<Tile*>::iterator it = all_tiles.begin(); |
- it != all_tiles.end(); |
- ++it) { |
- Tile* tile = *it; |
- if (mark_required) |
- tile->MarkRequiredForActivation(); |
- mark_required = !mark_required; |
+ for (size_t i = 0; i < tilings.size(); ++i) { |
+ PictureLayerTiling* tiling = tilings.at(i); |
+ for (PictureLayerTiling::CoverageIterator iter( |
+ tiling, |
+ pending_layer_->contents_scale_x(), |
+ pending_layer_->visible_content_rect()); |
+ iter; |
+ ++iter) { |
+ if (mark_required) |
+ iter->MarkRequiredForActivation(); |
+ mark_required = !mark_required; |
+ } |
sohanjg
2014/06/20 13:35:20
I think we shouldnt be iterating over all the tile
enne (OOO)
2014/06/25 18:33:07
I think that's an ok change. This is just a test,
vmpstr
2014/06/25 21:08:52
I agree with this change. I was considering making
sohanjg
2014/06/26 08:30:51
Done.
|
} |
// Sanity checks. |
@@ -2064,7 +2069,6 @@ TEST_F(PictureLayerImplTest, LayerEvictionTileIterator) { |
} |
EXPECT_TRUE(reached_visible); |
- EXPECT_TRUE(reached_required); |
sohanjg
2014/06/20 13:35:20
As mentioned above, this check is not required.
enne (OOO)
2014/06/25 18:33:07
This still seems valid to me. I don't understand.
|
EXPECT_EQ(65u, unique_tiles.size()); |
scale_index = 0; |