[OpenJDK 2D-Dev] [9] Review Request: JDK-8158524: Test file added for VolatileImage -vs- BufferedImage output comparison

[Prahalad Kumar Narayanan]

Hello Everyone

This is a follow-up to my webrev.

Thanks to Sergey for his feedback.
I 've incorporated the feedback and changes are now available for review
          Link: http:// http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pnarayanan/8158524/webrev.02/

Summary on changes from previous revision:
       . '@key headful' has been added to the jtreg comments
       . Swing UI components are invoked on EDT

Kindly review the changes and provide your feedback at your convenience

Thank you
Have a good day

Prahalad N.


-----Original Message-----
From: Sergey Bylokhov 
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 6:39 PM
To: Prahalad Kumar Narayanan; Prasanta Sadhukhan; 2d-dev at openjdk.java.net
Subject: Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] [9] Review Request: JDK-8158524: Test file added for VolatileImage -vs- BufferedImage output comparison

On 12.08.16 16:06, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
> Looks fine.
> Please add @key heedful jtreg tag before the push.

Ouch I just realize that the test use the Swing components on non-EDT.

>
> On 11.08.16 13:22, Prahalad Kumar Narayanan wrote:
>> Hello Everyone
>>
>> First, Thanks to Prasanta for his feedback.
>> I 've incorporated the feedback in the code and changes are available 
>> for review.
>>       Review Link:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pnarayanan/8158524/webrev.01/
>>
>> Quick summary on changes from previous revision:
>>       . Wild card imports have been replaced with specific imports
>>       . @override annotation has been added to the paint() method
>>       . RuntimeException is thrown instead of Error though both would 
>> report regression failure.
>>       . Image loading has been corrected with proper filePath.
>>       . With regard to image and licensing issue:
>>                 . I checked the image properties. There is no 
>> 'author/copyright' information with this image.
>>                 . The file matches when compared (binary) with the 
>> similar .gif image in test/java/awt/print/PrinterJob/
>>
>> Kindly review the changes at your convenience and share your views.
>>
>> Thank you
>> Have a good day
>>
>> Prahalad N.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Prasanta Sadhukhan
>> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 1:02 PM
>> To: Prahalad Kumar Narayanan; 2d-dev at openjdk.java.net
>> Cc: Philip Race; Sergey Bylokhov
>> Subject: Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] [9] Review Request: JDK-8158524: Test 
>> file added for VolatileImage -vs- BufferedImage output comparison
>>
>> You need to use @Override annotation for paint() method. Also, you 
>> can use specific imports rather than package imports.
>> Also, I guess it's better to throw RuntimeException than Error for 
>> failure, not sure how jtreg will react to it.
>> Lastly, I am not sure if you can use duke.gif image which maynot be 
>> licensed although we have similar duke.gif in java/awt/print/PrinterJob.
>>
>> Regards
>> Prasanta
>> On 8/11/2016 11:30 AM, Prahalad Kumar Narayanan wrote:
>>> Hello Everyone
>>>
>>> Good day to you.
>>>
>>> I 'm planning to add a test file into jdk/test/ repository.
>>> The webrev changes for the test file is presented herewith.
>>>             Link:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pnarayanan/8158524/webrev.00/
>>>
>>> Brief on the test & its objectives:
>>>          . As we know, VolatileImage utilizes accelerated rendering 
>>> using GPU while BufferedImage utilizes software rendering
>>>          . The objective of this test-case is to check whether the 
>>> rendered 2d primitives appear same on VolatileImage and BufferedImage
>>>          . In rare cases, the rendering on VolatileImage might 
>>> differ by few pixels from BufferedImage due to D3D/OpenGL driver 's 
>>> handling of primitives
>>>                   . Java2D pipelines for D3D/OpenGL APIs use fudge 
>>> factors to fine tune rendering calls so that output matches with 
>>> output of BufferedImage.
>>>                   . Thus the test case will help in checking for 
>>> consistent rendering across pipelines and also in identifying 
>>> scenarios where pipelines need to be fine-tuned.
>>>
>>> Kindly review the test file and share your views at your convenience
>>>
>>> Thank you
>>> Have a good day
>>>
>>> Prahalad N.
>>
>
>


--
Best regards, Sergey.