Rebase oscillator sine test result.

Rebase oscillator sine test result.

Manually compared this new result against the linux result and they
differ by about 2 units, which is expected. The old result appears
to have a completely incorrect frequency sweep.

Also added a new test for oscillator that uses SNR and max difference to compare the expected and actual result. This is a bit more robust with different numerical results and makes it easier to tell if something is totally wrong or just slightly wrong for the oscillator-sine test.

Removed oscillator-sine; it seems very sensitive to numerics of the platform, and I think the new osc-sine-sweep-snr test is robust enough to catch errors

The other oscillator tests are just updated to match the change in api in oscillator-testing.js to support passing in the context so different check routines can be used for the test.

BUG=425744, 431688, 309197
TESTS=osc-sine-sweep-snr.html

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=185249

[Raymond Toy, 2014-11-11 16:54:41]

rtoy@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ hongchan@chromium.org, kbr@chromium.org

[Raymond Toy, 2014-11-11 16:54:42]

PTAL

[Ken Russell (switch to Gerrit), 2014-11-11 18:50:12]

LGTM

[hongchan, 2014-11-11 19:03:14]

lgtm

LGTM with nits.

https://codereview.chromium.org/670863002/diff/100001/LayoutTests/webaudio/os...
File LayoutTests/webaudio/osc-sine-sweep-snr.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/670863002/diff/100001/LayoutTests/webaudio/os...
LayoutTests/webaudio/osc-sine-sweep-snr.html:13: // See oscillator-sine.html for
more info on the actual wave shape
TYPO: Missing period?

https://codereview.chromium.org/670863002/diff/100001/LayoutTests/webaudio/os...
LayoutTests/webaudio/osc-sine-sweep-snr.html:17: // that for several criteria to
pass. The SNR between the actual and expected signals be
TYPO: "should" or "must" be?

[Raymond Toy, 2014-11-11 19:48:02]

Thanks for the review

https://codereview.chromium.org/670863002/diff/100001/LayoutTests/webaudio/os...
File LayoutTests/webaudio/osc-sine-sweep-snr.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/670863002/diff/100001/LayoutTests/webaudio/os...
LayoutTests/webaudio/osc-sine-sweep-snr.html:13: // See oscillator-sine.html for
more info on the actual wave shape
On 2014/11/11 19:03:14, hoch wrote:
> TYPO: Missing period?

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/670863002/diff/100001/LayoutTests/webaudio/os...
LayoutTests/webaudio/osc-sine-sweep-snr.html:17: // that for several criteria to
pass. The SNR between the actual and expected signals be
On 2014/11/11 19:03:14, hoch wrote:
> TYPO: "should" or "must" be?

Done.

[Raymond Toy, 2014-11-11 19:48:48]

The CQ bit was checked by rtoy@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-11-11 19:49:10]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/670863002/120001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-11-11 22:16:40]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-11-11 22:16:41]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  win_blink_rel on tryserver.blink
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.blink/builders/win_blink_rel/builds/35900)

[Raymond Toy, 2014-11-11 22:35:09]

For whatever reason, the bots didn't like the new reference file even though the
previous CL trybots worked. This is the version I generated on my win7 machine.

I'm going to just remove the oscillator-sine test in favor of the
osc-sine-sweep-snr test, which is much more robust in terms of minor
floating-point differences.

New CL coming soon.

[Raymond Toy, 2014-11-12 21:26:04]

The CQ bit was checked by rtoy@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-11-12 21:26:23]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/670863002/180001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-11-12 22:16:38]

Committed patchset #10 (id:180001) as 185249