My XDC talk "Effects Framework for OpenGL Testing" just got done, and the slides are available. The talk went pretty well, and the discussion was healthy.

The three big high points of the discussion were:

  • For the most part, adding more language to learn won't necessarily make it easier to add more complex tests. Just writing C tests in piglit isn't bad these days. The worst parts are dealing with cmake and all.tests. The best thing about shader_runner (and similar) is that you don't have muck about with any of that.
  • One difficulty with complex tests is validating the correctness of results. The red / green box tests are good because the pass / fail metric is obvious. Perceptual difference algorithms can work (VMware uses them), but they can be twitchy and frustrating (Cairo gave up on them).
  • The shader_runner parser is a mess because everyone just added one more piece of duct tape for the next tiny feature they need. There used to be a clean, simple piece of code, but you can't see it now... all you can see is the big ball of duct tape. One advantage of nvFX is that it is a consistent, defined language... instead of a ball of duct tape. We could borrow their syntax for some of the things that shader_runner already does.

There may have been other important points, but those are the two that really stuck with me. The forum is open. :)
Comment by Joe Rayhawk Mon Sep 23 19:05:05 2013