If we get two different sysnames for the device, this test doesn't test
anything much, so it's better to fail here. But add a comment so that when it
fails it's quite obvious why.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
--verbose only works when running a specific test, sometimes we need make
check to be more verbose. Set this by default for make check, the log becomes
a lot more expressive that way
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
libunwind gives us a file and an address and usually a function name. Beyond
that, it's mostly guessing.
Fork off addr2line to resolve the addresses that libunwind gives us, if we
succeed we get a backtrace like this:
Backtrace:
0: litest_fail_comparison_int() (./test/litest.c:268)
1: disable_button_scrolling() (./test/pointer.c:115)
2: middlebutton_doubleclick() (./test/pointer.c:991)
3: /lib64/libcheck.so.0 (srunner_run+0x7f5) [0x7f6c12d8c025]
4: litest_run() (./test/litest.c:689)
5: main() (./test/pointer.c:1280)
6: /lib64/libc.so.6 (__libc_start_main+0xf0) [0x7f6c11a73790]
7: ./test/test-pointer (_start+0x29) [0x403d99]
8: ? (?+0x29) [0x29]
Note: I intentionally swapped function/file name in the output to make it
easier to spot which one is fully resolved and which one is the basic
libunwind output.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
The check unit test framework isn't particularly suited to having ck_assert*
calls in helper functions. A failed assertion in a helper function or the
litest framework merely gives us a the failed line in litest.c.
which doesn't tell us which test actually failed.
Add a backtracing facility with litest_backtrace(). And since this requires
wrapping all ck_assert macros with litest_assert() this patch ended up
replacing/duplicating a bunch of ck_assert_* bits. So rather than
ck_assert_int_eq() we now use litest_assert_int_eq(), etc. in the litest
framework itself.
The int comparison macros are more type-safe than ck_assert()'s macros which
just cast all the ints to intmax_t.
Backtrace is spewed to stderr, which is good enough for debugging. Example
backtrace:
FAILED COMPARISON: status != expected
Resolved to: 0 != 0
in disable_button_scrolling() (pointer.c:115)
Backtrace:
0: ./test/test-pointer (litest_fail_comparison_int+0xab) [0x40973b]
1: ./test/test-pointer (disable_button_scrolling+0x174) [0x40421b]
2: ./test/test-pointer (middlebutton_middleclick+0x40) [0x40829c]
3: /lib64/libcheck.so.0 (srunner_run+0x7f5) [0x7f0e8a277025]
4: ./test/test-pointer (litest_run+0x107) [0x40a42b]
5: ./test/test-pointer (main+0x2fa) [0x4090e7]
6: /lib64/libc.so.6 (__libc_start_main+0xf0) [0x7f0e88f5e790]
7: ./test/test-pointer (_start+0x29) [0x403ce9]
8: ? (?+0x29) [0x29]
litest_backtrace() itself is copied from xserver/os/backtrace.c which git
blame attributes to Marcin.
CC: Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
No effect with the current macros since they'll cast to int for us, but this
will change with the litest_assert macros.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Unfortunately, typeof(enum something) != typeof(ENUM_VALUE) and produces a
-Wsign-compare warning
Preemptively fix this, it'll show up in the upcoming litest_asssert macros
otherwise.
This fix only applies to helper functions, tests themselves wont (yet) be
switched to the new macros and don't need fixing.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
unsigned vs signed in both cases, but the ck_assert macros hide that
(everything is cast to intmax_t). The upcoming litest_assert wrappers expose
these warnings, so fix them ahead of time.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
litest_add_ranged* takes a range parameter that serves as the lower/upper
boundary for a loop. This enables tests to be run multiple times, avoiding the
timeouts we triggered by having the loops inside (e.g. see 2bf8d035c and
6dd02468).
This just wraps the underlying check framework, the ranged variable is
available as "_i" in the test.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Run the touchpad tests first, it's the most likely to fail. It also takes the
longest, so it's annoying to have it fail when you spent a minute watching the
other tests succeed.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
When the device supports true hovering, it reports this
information through ABS_MT_DISTANCE.
When this axis is available, we should rely on it to
(un)hover the touches as BTN_TOUCH is most of the time
unreliable (generated by the mouse emulation in the kernel).
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
The current hover tests are uniquely designed for some Synaptics
touchpad. libinput can handle hovering through ABS_MT_DISTANCE,
so we need to reserve the "hover" name for real hovering devices.
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Prep work for the upcoming patch to extend the timeout for tap-and-drag. And
switch the tests that rely on it over to the new function.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
libevdev filters the ABS_MT_TRACKING_ID event for a double-touch down like
this so we never see this in libinput. We see an error message from libevdev
but otherwise this test is a false negative.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
If we have a middle button but no wheels, enable on-button scrolling for the
middle button by default. This applies e.g. to the Logitech trackball added as
new test device here.
This makes the separate check for POINTINGSTICK obsolete but I'd rather leave
this in to be more explicit about it.
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=90208
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Instead of excluding the pointing stick devices, disable middle button
scrolling on those and run them anyway.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Released the wrong touch point, causing warnings:
libevdev error in sanitize_event: BUG: Device "litest SynPS/2 Synaptics
TouchPad" received a double tracking ID 6 in slot 0.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Almost identical to the one we already had but this one also has ABS_X/Y to
mess things up. Update the existing one, no need to add a separate device here.
The fake MT touch test needs to be updated now though. A fake MT device may be
an absolute device too, so if we use the touch_down() handlers we may generate
abs pointer events. That's valid, we only check for no touch events here.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Reviewed-By: Derek Foreman <derekf@osg.samsung.com>
Some devices provide abs x/y and rel x/y. We can't know which event the device
will send. The Microsoft Surface Type Cover sends relative events, which
then crashes libinput when we don't have an accel filter set up.
So instead of checking that the device doesn't have ABS_X/Y, check for the
device to have REL_X/Y instead.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206869
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Reviewed-By: Derek Foreman <derekf@osg.samsung.com>
Added in d2842893a8 but never added to the list
of devices so none of the tests ran against it.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Reviewed-By: Derek Foreman <derekf@osg.samsung.com>
LITEST_KEYBOARD is the type, LITEST_KEYS is the feature.
And this device has buttons, so mark it as such.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Reviewed-By: Derek Foreman <derekf@osg.samsung.com>
litest doesn't know how to set this up and we don't need it anyway.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Reviewed-By: Derek Foreman <derekf@osg.samsung.com>
