[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] avfilter/vf_transpose: Fix regression with packed pixel formats

[wm4]

On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 10:11:20 +0100
Paul B Mahol <onemda at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 1/28/18, James Almer <jamrial at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 1/27/2018 10:50 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:  
> >> Regression since: c6939f65a116b1ffed345d29d8621ee4ffb32235
> >> Found-by: Paul B Mahol <onemda at gmail.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer <michael at niedermayer.cc>
> >> ---
> >>  libavfilter/vf_transpose.c | 2 +-
> >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/libavfilter/vf_transpose.c b/libavfilter/vf_transpose.c
> >> index 1e1a5c4b89..bf2ab7eb18 100644
> >> --- a/libavfilter/vf_transpose.c
> >> +++ b/libavfilter/vf_transpose.c
> >> @@ -217,7 +217,7 @@ static int config_props_output(AVFilterLink *outlink)
> >>
> >>      s->hsub = desc_in->log2_chroma_w;
> >>      s->vsub = desc_in->log2_chroma_h;
> >> -    s->planes = desc_in->nb_components;
> >> +    s->planes = (desc_in->flags & AV_PIX_FMT_FLAG_PLANAR) ?
> >> desc_in->nb_components : 1;
> >>
> >>      av_assert0(desc_in->nb_components == desc_out->nb_components);  
> >
> > If there are currently no tests for this filter (or at least not for
> > packet formats), then one should be added.
> >
> > Lavfi's current fate coverage is unacceptably low. Something like two
> > third of the codebase remains untested according to LCOV.
> > At this point no software filter should be added without a fate test for
> > at least a basic usage example using either the fate generated synthetic
> > sources or any samples in the suite. Same with new features for new filters.  
> 
> That is unacceptable.

Testing code is unacceptable? Excuse me?

The only unacceptable thing is probably the slowdown you can expect
on full fate runs once the coverage reaches 100%.