acceptance test ClientLatency.double_buffered_client_uses_all_buffers does not measure latency accurately (reports low latency when we know it's higher)
Bug #1447947 reported by
Daniel van Vugt
This bug affects 1 person
| Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mir |
Fix Released
|
Medium
|
Daniel van Vugt | ||
| mir (Ubuntu) |
Fix Released
|
Medium
|
Unassigned | ||
Bug Description
acceptance test ClientLatency.
Today when I switched us back to triple buffering, that test continued to pass (on most machines) measuring a latency of around 1, which is inaccurate because it should be exactly 2.
It appears the test got broken probably around r2387.
More info: https:/
Related branches
lp:~vanvugt/mir/triple-again
- Alan Griffiths: Needs Fixing
- Cemil Azizoglu (community): Approve
- Kevin DuBois (community): Approve
- Alexandros Frantzis (community): Approve
- PS Jenkins bot (community): Approve (continuous-integration)
-
Diff: 70 lines (+12/-10)3 files modifieddebian/changelog (+1/-2)
src/platform/options/default_configuration.cpp (+1/-2)
tests/acceptance-tests/test_latency.cpp (+10/-6)
lp:~vanvugt/mir/fix-1447947
- PS Jenkins bot (community): Approve (continuous-integration)
- Alexandros Frantzis (community): Approve
- Alan Griffiths: Needs Fixing
-
Diff: 156 lines (+53/-30)1 file modifiedtests/acceptance-tests/test_latency.cpp (+53/-30)
Revision history for this message
| Daniel van Vugt (vanvugt) wrote | #1 |
| Changed in mir: | |
| status: | Triaged → Incomplete |
| summary: |
- [regression] acceptance test - ClientLatency.double_buffered_client_uses_all_buffers no longer detects - latency accurately + acceptance test ClientLatency.double_buffered_client_uses_all_buffers + does not latency accurately (reports low latency when we know it's + higher) |
| description: | updated |
| tags: | removed: regression |
| summary: |
acceptance test ClientLatency.double_buffered_client_uses_all_buffers - does not latency accurately (reports low latency when we know it's - higher) + does not measure latency accurately (reports low latency when we know + it's higher) |
| Changed in mir: | |
| status: | Incomplete → New |
Revision history for this message
| PS Jenkins bot (ps-jenkins) wrote | #2 |
| Changed in mir: | |
| status: | New → Fix Committed |
| Changed in mir: | |
| status: | Fix Committed → Triaged |
| Changed in mir: | |
| assignee: | nobody → Daniel van Vugt (vanvugt) |
| Changed in mir: | |
| milestone: | none → 0.16.0 |
| status: | Triaged → In Progress |
Revision history for this message
| PS Jenkins bot (ps-jenkins) wrote | #3 |
| Changed in mir: | |
| status: | In Progress → Fix Committed |
| Changed in mir: | |
| status: | Fix Committed → Fix Released |
Revision history for this message
| Daniel van Vugt (vanvugt) wrote | #4 |
| Changed in mir (Ubuntu): | |
| importance: | Undecided → Medium |
| status: | New → Fix Released |
To post a comment you must log in.
Incomplete. Actually it's unclear if the test ever worked properly. I tried reverting r2387 and it's still broken.