[v2,03/12] libcamera: lc-compliance: Add initial set of per-frame-control tests

19705 diff mbox series

These tests check if controls (only exposure time and analogue gain at
the moment) get applied on the frame they were requested for.

This is tested by looking at the metadata and the mean brightness
of the image center.

At the moment these tests fail. Fixes for the pipelines will be delivered
in later patches.

To run only the teste, one can run:
lc-compliance -c <cam> -f "SingleStream.*"

Note that the current implementation is a bit picky on what the camera
actually sees. If it is too dark (or too bright), the tests will fail.
Looking at a white wall in a normally lit office usually works.

Signed-off-by: Stefan Klug <stefan.klug@ideasonboard.com>
---
 src/apps/lc-compliance/capture_test.cpp       |  46 +++
 src/apps/lc-compliance/meson.build            |   1 +
 src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.cpp | 316 ++++++++++++++++++
 src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.h   |  43 +++
 4 files changed, 406 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.cpp
 create mode 100644 src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.h

Hi Stefan

On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 01:12:14PM +0100, Stefan Klug wrote:
> These tests check if controls (only exposure time and analogue gain at
> the moment) get applied on the frame they were requested for.
>
> This is tested by looking at the metadata and the mean brightness
> of the image center.
>
> At the moment these tests fail. Fixes for the pipelines will be delivered
> in later patches.

Nice!

>
> To run only the teste, one can run:

s/teste/test

> lc-compliance -c <cam> -f "SingleStream.*"
>
> Note that the current implementation is a bit picky on what the camera
> actually sees. If it is too dark (or too bright), the tests will fail.
> Looking at a white wall in a normally lit office usually works.

Mmm, is this ok for a compliance suite ? Is this the reason the image
tests are 'optional' ?

>
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Klug <stefan.klug@ideasonboard.com>
> ---
>  src/apps/lc-compliance/capture_test.cpp       |  46 +++
>  src/apps/lc-compliance/meson.build            |   1 +
>  src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.cpp | 316 ++++++++++++++++++
>  src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.h   |  43 +++
>  4 files changed, 406 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.cpp
>  create mode 100644 src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.h
>
> diff --git a/src/apps/lc-compliance/capture_test.cpp b/src/apps/lc-compliance/capture_test.cpp
> index 1dcfcf92..b19e8936 100644
> --- a/src/apps/lc-compliance/capture_test.cpp
> +++ b/src/apps/lc-compliance/capture_test.cpp
> @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
>  #include <gtest/gtest.h>
>
>  #include "environment.h"
> +#include "per_frame_controls.h"
>  #include "simple_capture.h"
>
>  using namespace libcamera;
> @@ -133,3 +134,48 @@ INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P(CaptureTests,
>  			 testing::Combine(testing::ValuesIn(ROLES),
>  					  testing::ValuesIn(NUMREQUESTS)),
>  			 SingleStream::nameParameters);
> +
> +/*
> + * Test Per frame controls
> + */
> +TEST_F(SingleStream, testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame)
> +{
> +	PerFrameControls capture(camera_);
> +	capture.configure(StreamRole::VideoRecording);
> +	capture.testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame();
> +}
> +
> +TEST_F(SingleStream, testFramePreciseExposureChange)
> +{
> +	PerFrameControls capture(camera_);
> +	capture.configure(StreamRole::VideoRecording);
> +	capture.testFramePreciseExposureChange();
> +}
> +
> +TEST_F(SingleStream, testFramePreciseGainChange)
> +{
> +	PerFrameControls capture(camera_);
> +	capture.configure(StreamRole::VideoRecording);
> +	capture.testFramePreciseGainChange();
> +}
> +
> +TEST_F(SingleStream, testExposureGainIsAppliedOnFirstFrame)
> +{
> +	PerFrameControls capture(camera_);
> +	capture.configure(StreamRole::VideoRecording);
> +	capture.testExposureGainIsAppliedOnFirstFrame();
> +}
> +
> +TEST_F(SingleStream, testExposureGainFromFirstRequestGetsApplied)
> +{
> +	PerFrameControls capture(camera_);
> +	capture.configure(StreamRole::VideoRecording);
> +	capture.testExposureGainFromFirstRequestGetsApplied();
> +}
> +
> +TEST_F(SingleStream, testExposureGainFromFirstAndSecondRequestGetsApplied)
> +{
> +	PerFrameControls capture(camera_);
> +	capture.configure(StreamRole::VideoRecording);
> +	capture.testExposureGainFromFirstAndSecondRequestGetsApplied();
> +}

This now shows up as

SingleStream.
  testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame
  testFramePreciseExposureChange
  testFramePreciseGainChange
  testExposureGainIsAppliedOnFirstFrame
  testExposureGainFromFirstRequestGetsApplied
  testExposureGainFromFirstAndSecondRequestGetsApplied

And we already have

CaptureTests/SingleStream.
  Capture/Raw_1  # GetParam() = (Raw, 1)
  Capture/Raw_2  # GetParam() = (Raw, 2)
  Capture/Raw_3  # GetParam() = (Raw, 3)
  Capture/Raw_5  # GetParam() = (Raw, 5)
  Capture/Raw_8  # GetParam() = (Raw, 8)
  Capture/Raw_13  # GetParam() = (Raw, 13)
  Capture/Raw_21  # GetParam() = (Raw, 21)
  Capture/Raw_34  # GetParam() = (Raw, 34)
  Capture/Raw_55  # GetParam() = (Raw, 55)
  Capture/Raw_89  # GetParam() = (Raw, 89)

I would have not instantiated these tests in capture_test.cpp but
directly in per_frame_control.cpp and I would have named them
"PerFrameControl". To do so you need to define a test class that
derives from testing::Test in per_frame_control.cpp


+/*
+ * Test Per frame controls
+ */
+
+class PerFrameControlTest : public testing::Test
+{
+protected:
+       void SetUp() override;
+       void TearDown() override;
+
+       std::shared_ptr<Camera> camera_;
+};
+
+void PerFrameControlTest::SetUp()
+{
+       Environment *env = Environment::get();
+
+       camera_ = env->cm()->get(env->cameraId());
+
+       ASSERT_EQ(camera_->acquire(), 0);
+}
+
+void PerFrameControlTest::TearDown()
+{
+       if (!camera_)
+               return;
+
+       camera_->release();
+       camera_.reset();
+}
+
+TEST_F(PerFrameControlTest, testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame)
.....

With this you get a dedicated test suite

PerFrameControlTest.
  testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame
  testFramePreciseExposureChange
  testFramePreciseGainChange
  testExposureGainIsAppliedOnFirstFrame
  testExposureGainFromFirstRequestGetsApplied
  testExposureGainFromFirstAndSecondRequestGetsApplied

Also, you now can drop the

	void testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame();
	void testFramePreciseExposureChange();
	void testFramePreciseGainChange();
	void testExposureGainIsAppliedOnFirstFrame();
	void testExposureGainFromFirstRequestGetsApplied();
	void testExposureGainFromFirstAndSecondRequestGetsApplied();

functions from the PerFrameControl class, and implement the tests in
the test definition instead of having them as wrappers that call the
PerFrameControl class' functions

TL;DR do this:

TEST_F(PerFrameControlTest, testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame)
{
	PerFrameControls capture(camera_);
	capture.configure(StreamRole::VideoRecording);

	ControlList startValues;
	startValues.set(controls::ExposureTime, 5000);
	startValues.set(controls::AnalogueGain, 1.0);

	auto timeSheet = capture.startCaptureWithTimeSheet(10, &startValues);
	auto &ts = *timeSheet;

	/* wait a few frames to settle */
	ts[7].controls().set(controls::ExposureTime, 10000);
	ts[7].controls().set(controls::AnalogueGain, 4.0);

        ...
}


in place of:

TEST_F(PerFrameControlTest, testFramePreciseExposureChange)
{
	PerFrameControls capture(camera_);
	capture.configure(StreamRole::VideoRecording);
	capture.testFramePreciseExposureChange();
}



> diff --git a/src/apps/lc-compliance/meson.build b/src/apps/lc-compliance/meson.build
> index eb7b2d71..2a6f52af 100644
> --- a/src/apps/lc-compliance/meson.build
> +++ b/src/apps/lc-compliance/meson.build
> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ lc_compliance_sources = files([
>      'capture_test.cpp',
>      'environment.cpp',
>      'main.cpp',
> +    'per_frame_controls.cpp',
>      'simple_capture.cpp',
>      'time_sheet.cpp',
>  ])
> diff --git a/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.cpp b/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.cpp
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000..eb7164e0
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.cpp
> @@ -0,0 +1,316 @@
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later */
> +/*
> + * Copyright (C) 2024, Ideas on Board Oy
> + *
> + * per_frame_controls.cpp - Tests for per frame controls
> + */
> +#include "per_frame_controls.h"
> +
> +#include <gtest/gtest.h>
> +
> +#include "time_sheet.h"
> +
> +using namespace libcamera;
> +
> +static const bool doImageTests = true;
> +
> +PerFrameControls::PerFrameControls(std::shared_ptr<Camera> camera)
> +	: SimpleCapture(camera)
> +{
> +}
> +
> +std::shared_ptr<TimeSheet>
> +PerFrameControls::startCaptureWithTimeSheet(unsigned int framesToCapture, const ControlList *controls)
> +{
> +	ControlList ctrls(camera_->controls().idmap());

Empty line please

> +	/* Ensure defined default values */
> +	ctrls.set(controls::AeEnable, false);
> +	ctrls.set(controls::AeExposureMode, controls::ExposureCustom);
> +	ctrls.set(controls::ExposureTime, 10000);
> +	ctrls.set(controls::AnalogueGain, 1.0);
> +
> +	if (controls)
> +		ctrls.merge(*controls, ControlList::MergePolicy::OverwriteExisting);
> +
> +	start(&ctrls);
> +
> +	queueCount_ = 0;
> +	captureCount_ = 0;
> +	captureLimit_ = framesToCapture;
> +
> +	auto timeSheet = std::make_shared<TimeSheet>(captureLimit_, camera_->controls().idmap());
> +	timeSheet_ = timeSheet;

I'm sorry but I don't see why you would use a shared_ptr<> and a weak
reference when the timeSheet_ ownership is not shared with any other
component outside of this class

> +	return timeSheet;
> +}
> +
> +int PerFrameControls::queueRequest(Request *request)
> +{
> +	queueCount_++;
> +	if (queueCount_ > captureLimit_)
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	auto ts = timeSheet_.lock();
> +	if (ts)
> +		ts->prepareForQueue(request, queueCount_ - 1);
> +
> +	return camera_->queueRequest(request);
> +}
> +
> +void PerFrameControls::requestComplete(Request *request)
> +{
> +	auto ts = timeSheet_.lock();
> +	if (ts)
> +		ts->handleCompleteRequest(request);
> +
> +	captureCount_++;
> +	if (captureCount_ >= captureLimit_) {
> +		loop_->exit(0);
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
> +	request->reuse(Request::ReuseBuffers);
> +	if (queueRequest(request))
> +		loop_->exit(-EINVAL);
> +}
> +
> +void PerFrameControls::runCaptureSession()
> +{
> +	Stream *stream = config_->at(0).stream();
> +	const std::vector<std::unique_ptr<FrameBuffer>> &buffers = allocator_->buffers(stream);
> +
> +	/* Queue the recommended number of reqeuests. */

s/reqeuests/requests/

> +	for (const std::unique_ptr<FrameBuffer> &buffer : buffers) {
> +		std::unique_ptr<Request> request = camera_->createRequest();
> +		request->addBuffer(stream, buffer.get());
> +		queueRequest(request.get());
> +		requests_.push_back(std::move(request));
> +	}
> +
> +	/* Run capture session. */
> +	loop_ = new EventLoop();
> +	loop_->exec();
> +	stop();
> +	delete loop_;
> +}
> +
> +void PerFrameControls::testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame()
> +{
> +	ControlList startValues;
> +	startValues.set(controls::ExposureTime, 5000);
> +	startValues.set(controls::AnalogueGain, 1.0);
> +
> +	auto timeSheet = startCaptureWithTimeSheet(10, &startValues);
> +	auto &ts = *timeSheet;

Why a temporary reference ?

> +
> +	/* wait a few frames to settle */
> +	ts[7].controls().set(controls::ExposureTime, 10000);
> +	ts[7].controls().set(controls::AnalogueGain, 4.0);
> +
> +	runCaptureSession();
> +
> +	/* Uncomment this to debug the test */
> +	/* ts.printAllInfos(); */

Please drop

> +
> +	ASSERT_TRUE(ts[5].metadata().contains(controls::ExposureTime.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> +	ASSERT_TRUE(ts[5].metadata().contains(controls::AnalogueGain.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";

Break long lines when possible

> +
> +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[3].metadata().get(controls::ExposureTime).value(), 5000, 20);
> +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[3].metadata().get(controls::AnalogueGain).value(), 1.0, 0.05);
> +
> +	//find the frame with the changes

No C++ comments please

> +	int exposureChangeIndex = 0;
> +	for (unsigned i = 3; i < ts.size(); i++) {
> +		if (ts[i].metadata().get(controls::ExposureTime).value() > 7500) {
> +			exposureChangeIndex = i;
> +			break;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	int gainChangeIndex = 0;
> +	for (unsigned i = 3; i < ts.size(); i++) {
> +		if (ts[i].metadata().get(controls::AnalogueGain).value() > 2.0) {
> +			gainChangeIndex = i;
> +			break;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	EXPECT_NE(exposureChangeIndex, 0) << "Exposure change not found in metadata";
> +	EXPECT_NE(gainChangeIndex, 0) << "Gain change not found in metadata";
> +	EXPECT_EQ(exposureChangeIndex, gainChangeIndex)
> +		<< "Metadata contained gain and exposure changes on different frames";
> +
> +	if (doImageTests) {

Why do you think it should be optional ? If it has to be made optional
it should be done in a way that doesn't depend on a compile time
constant defined in the source code. Either make a series of separate
image tests or add an option to lc-compliance.

> +		int brightnessChangeIndex = 0;
> +		for (unsigned i = 3; i < ts.size(); i++) {

The usage of '3' seems to be there to ignore the first three frames,
right ? If so, what about defining a constant and add a comment ?

> +			if (ts[i].getBrightnessChange() > 1.3) {
> +				EXPECT_EQ(brightnessChangeIndex, 0)
> +					<< "Detected multiple frames with brightness increase (Wrong control delays?)";
> +
> +				if (!brightnessChangeIndex)
> +					brightnessChangeIndex = i;
> +			}
> +		}
> +
> +		EXPECT_EQ(exposureChangeIndex, brightnessChangeIndex)
> +			<< "Exposure change and mesaured brightness change were not on same frame. "
> +			<< "(Wrong control delay?, Start frame event too late?)";
> +		EXPECT_EQ(exposureChangeIndex, gainChangeIndex)
> +			<< "Gain change and mesaured brightness change were not on same frame. "
> +			<< "(Wrong control delay?, Start frame event too late?)";
> +	}
> +}
> +
> +void PerFrameControls::testFramePreciseExposureChange()
> +{
> +	auto timeSheet = startCaptureWithTimeSheet(10);
> +	auto &ts = *timeSheet;
> +
> +	ts[3].controls().set(controls::ExposureTime, 5000);
> +	/* wait a few frames to settle */
> +	ts[6].controls().set(controls::ExposureTime, 20000);
> +
> +	runCaptureSession();
> +
> +	/* Uncomment this to debug the test */
> +	/* ts.printAllInfos(); */

ditto

> +
> +	ASSERT_TRUE(ts[5].metadata().contains(controls::ExposureTime.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";

break long lines

> +
> +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[5].metadata().get(controls::ExposureTime).value(), 5000, 20);
> +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[6].metadata().get(controls::ExposureTime).value(), 20000, 20);
> +
> +	if (doImageTests) {
> +		/* No increase just before setting exposure */
> +		EXPECT_NEAR(ts[5].getBrightnessChange(), 1.0, 0.05)
> +			<< "Brightness changed too much before the expected time of change (control delay too high?).";
> +		/*
> +		* Todo: The change is brightness was a bit low

Wrong alignment

We don't Doxygen lc-compliance but try to use \todo for consistency
with the rest of the code base

> +		* (Exposure time increase by 4x resulted in a brightness increase of < 2).
> +		* This should be investigated.

Might be platform specific issue ?

> +		*/
> +		EXPECT_GT(ts[6].getBrightnessChange(), 1.3)
> +			<< "Brightness in frame " << 6 << " did not increase as expected (reference: "
> +			<< ts[3].getSpotBrightness() << " current: " << ts[6].getSpotBrightness() << " )" << std::endl;
> +
> +		/* No increase just after setting exposure */
> +		EXPECT_NEAR(ts[7].getBrightnessChange(), 1.0, 0.05)
> +			<< "Brightness changed too much after the expected time of change (control delay too low?).";
> +
> +		/* No increase just after setting exposure */
> +		EXPECT_NEAR(ts[8].getBrightnessChange(), 1.0, 0.05)
> +			<< "Brightness changed too much 2 frames after the expected time of change (control delay too low?).";
> +	}
> +}
> +
> +void PerFrameControls::testFramePreciseGainChange()
> +{
> +	auto timeSheet = startCaptureWithTimeSheet(10);
> +	auto &ts = *timeSheet;
> +
> +	ts[3].controls().set(controls::AnalogueGain, 1.0);
> +	/* wait a few frames to settle */
> +	ts[6].controls().set(controls::AnalogueGain, 4.0);
> +
> +	runCaptureSession();
> +
> +	/* Uncomment this, to debug the test */
> +	/* ts.printAllInfos(); */
> +
> +	ASSERT_TRUE(ts[5].metadata().contains(controls::AnalogueGain.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";

Break this long line

> +
> +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[5].metadata().get(controls::AnalogueGain).value(), 1.0, 0.1);
> +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[6].metadata().get(controls::AnalogueGain).value(), 4.0, 0.1);
> +
> +	if (doImageTests) {
> +		/* No increase just before setting gain */
> +		EXPECT_NEAR(ts[5].getBrightnessChange(), 1.0, 0.05)
> +			<< "Brightness changed too much before the expected time of change (control delay too high?).";
> +		/*
> +		* Todo: I see a brightness change of roughly half the expected one.

Wrong alignment here too, also \todo

> +		* This is not yet understood and needs investigation

Defintely some platform specific thing to investigate then ?

> +		*/
> +		EXPECT_GT(ts[6].getBrightnessChange(), 1.7)
> +			<< "Brightness in frame " << 6 << " did not increase as expected (reference: "
> +			<< ts[5].getSpotBrightness() << " current: " << ts[6].getSpotBrightness() << " )" << std::endl;
> +
> +		/* No increase just after setting gain */
> +		EXPECT_NEAR(ts[7].getBrightnessChange(), 1.0, 0.05)
> +			<< "Brightness changed too much after the expected time of change (control delay too low?).";
> +
> +		/* No increase just after setting gain */
> +		EXPECT_NEAR(ts[8].getBrightnessChange(), 1.0, 0.05)
> +			<< "Brightness changed too much after the expected time of change (control delay too low?).";
> +	}
> +}
> +
> +void PerFrameControls::testExposureGainFromFirstRequestGetsApplied()
> +{
> +	auto timeSheet = startCaptureWithTimeSheet(5);
> +	auto &ts = *timeSheet;
> +
> +	ts[0].controls().set(controls::ExposureTime, 10000);
> +	ts[0].controls().set(controls::AnalogueGain, 4.0);
> +
> +	runCaptureSession();
> +
> +	ASSERT_TRUE(ts[4].metadata().contains(controls::ExposureTime.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> +	ASSERT_TRUE(ts[4].metadata().contains(controls::AnalogueGain.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";

You can easily break these lines

> +
> +	/* We expect it to be applied after 3 frames, the latest*/

What if a sensor takes a longer time to apply exposure and gain ?

> +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[4].metadata().get(controls::ExposureTime).value(), 10000, 20);
> +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[4].metadata().get(controls::AnalogueGain).value(), 4.0, 0.1);
> +}
> +
> +void PerFrameControls::testExposureGainFromFirstAndSecondRequestGetsApplied()
> +{
> +	auto timeSheet = startCaptureWithTimeSheet(5);
> +	auto &ts = *timeSheet;
> +
> +	ts[0].controls().set(controls::ExposureTime, 8000);
> +	ts[0].controls().set(controls::AnalogueGain, 2.0);
> +	ts[1].controls().set(controls::ExposureTime, 10000);
> +	ts[1].controls().set(controls::AnalogueGain, 4.0);

As a general question, how do we guarantee the values you use to set
exposure and gains are valid for all possible sensors ?

Shouldn't you inspect inspect the ControlInfo limit from
Camera::controls() and clamp the values in the min/max range ?

> +
> +	runCaptureSession();
> +
> +	ASSERT_TRUE(ts[4].metadata().contains(controls::ExposureTime.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> +	ASSERT_TRUE(ts[4].metadata().contains(controls::AnalogueGain.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";

Ditto

> +
> +	/* We expect it to be applied after 3 frames, the latest */
> +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[4].metadata().get(controls::ExposureTime).value(), 10000, 20);
> +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[4].metadata().get(controls::AnalogueGain).value(), 4.0, 0.1);
> +}
> +
> +void PerFrameControls::testExposureGainIsAppliedOnFirstFrame()
> +{
> +	ControlList startValues;
> +	startValues.set(controls::ExposureTime, 5000);
> +	startValues.set(controls::AnalogueGain, 1.0);
> +
> +	auto ts1 = startCaptureWithTimeSheet(3, &startValues);
> +
> +	runCaptureSession();
> +
> +	ASSERT_TRUE((*ts1)[0].metadata().contains(controls::ExposureTime.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> +	ASSERT_TRUE((*ts1)[0].metadata().contains(controls::AnalogueGain.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> +
> +	EXPECT_NEAR((*ts1)[0].metadata().get(controls::ExposureTime).value(), 5000, 20);
> +	EXPECT_NEAR((*ts1)[0].metadata().get(controls::AnalogueGain).value(), 1.0, 0.02);
> +
> +	/* Second capture with different values to ensure we don't hit default/old values */
> +	startValues.set(controls::ExposureTime, 15000);
> +	startValues.set(controls::AnalogueGain, 4.0);
> +
> +	auto ts2 = startCaptureWithTimeSheet(3, &startValues);
> +
> +	runCaptureSession();
> +
> +	EXPECT_NEAR((*ts2)[0].metadata().get(controls::ExposureTime).value(), 15000, 20);
> +	EXPECT_NEAR((*ts2)[0].metadata().get(controls::AnalogueGain).value(), 4.0, 0.02);
> +
> +	if (doImageTests) {
> +		/* With 3x exposure and 4x gain we could expect a brightness increase of 2x */
> +		double brightnessChange = ts2->get(1).getSpotBrightness() / ts1->get(1).getSpotBrightness();
> +		EXPECT_GT(brightnessChange, 2.0);
> +	}
> +}
> diff --git a/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.h b/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000..a341c61f
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later */
> +/*
> + * Copyright (C) 2024, Ideas on Board Oy
> + *
> + * per_frame_controls.h - Tests for per frame controls
> + */
> +
> +#pragma once
> +
> +#include <memory>
> +
> +#include <libcamera/libcamera.h>
> +
> +#include "../common/event_loop.h"
> +
> +#include "simple_capture.h"
> +#include "time_sheet.h"
> +
> +class PerFrameControls : public SimpleCapture
> +{
> +public:
> +	PerFrameControls(std::shared_ptr<libcamera::Camera> camera);
> +
> +	std::shared_ptr<TimeSheet>
> +	startCaptureWithTimeSheet(unsigned int framesToCapture, const libcamera::ControlList *controls = nullptr);
> +	void runCaptureSession();
> +
> +	void testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame();
> +	void testFramePreciseExposureChange();
> +	void testFramePreciseGainChange();
> +	void testExposureGainIsAppliedOnFirstFrame();
> +	void testExposureGainFromFirstRequestGetsApplied();
> +	void testExposureGainFromFirstAndSecondRequestGetsApplied();
> +
> +	int queueRequest(libcamera::Request *request);
> +	void requestComplete(libcamera::Request *request) override;
> +
> +	unsigned int queueCount_;
> +	unsigned int captureCount_;
> +	unsigned int captureLimit_;
> +
> +	std::weak_ptr<TimeSheet> timeSheet_;
> +};
> --
> 2.40.1
>

Hi Jacopo,

thanks for the review.

On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 03:42:39PM +0100, Jacopo Mondi wrote:
> Hi Stefan
> 
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 01:12:14PM +0100, Stefan Klug wrote:
> > These tests check if controls (only exposure time and analogue gain at
> > the moment) get applied on the frame they were requested for.
> >
> > This is tested by looking at the metadata and the mean brightness
> > of the image center.
> >
> > At the moment these tests fail. Fixes for the pipelines will be delivered
> > in later patches.
> 
> Nice!
> 
> >
> > To run only the teste, one can run:
> 
> s/teste/test
> 
> > lc-compliance -c <cam> -f "SingleStream.*"
> >
> > Note that the current implementation is a bit picky on what the camera
> > actually sees. If it is too dark (or too bright), the tests will fail.
> > Looking at a white wall in a normally lit office usually works.
> 
> Mmm, is this ok for a compliance suite ? Is this the reason the image
> tests are 'optional' ?

Yes, in the beginning I wasn't sure how far we should go in first place.
You basically have two options here:
- Dynamically finding a "base" exposure time that works (e.g. bright
  enough that you see a difference when the values increase and dim
  enough to not saturate any pixel). This might work but has a large
  dependency on the efficiency of the sensor and might still be flaky.
- Building and distributing a physical testrig with defined brightness.
  This is cool, but a larger task.

So I started small added this 'optional' term so that we could collect
some practical experience on how stable these tests are on different
devices.

> 
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stefan Klug <stefan.klug@ideasonboard.com>
> > ---
> >  src/apps/lc-compliance/capture_test.cpp       |  46 +++
> >  src/apps/lc-compliance/meson.build            |   1 +
> >  src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.cpp | 316 ++++++++++++++++++
> >  src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.h   |  43 +++
> >  4 files changed, 406 insertions(+)
> >  create mode 100644 src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.cpp
> >  create mode 100644 src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.h
> >
> > diff --git a/src/apps/lc-compliance/capture_test.cpp b/src/apps/lc-compliance/capture_test.cpp
> > index 1dcfcf92..b19e8936 100644
> > --- a/src/apps/lc-compliance/capture_test.cpp
> > +++ b/src/apps/lc-compliance/capture_test.cpp
> > @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
> >  #include <gtest/gtest.h>
> >
> >  #include "environment.h"
> > +#include "per_frame_controls.h"
> >  #include "simple_capture.h"
> >
> >  using namespace libcamera;
> > @@ -133,3 +134,48 @@ INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P(CaptureTests,
> >  			 testing::Combine(testing::ValuesIn(ROLES),
> >  					  testing::ValuesIn(NUMREQUESTS)),
> >  			 SingleStream::nameParameters);
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Test Per frame controls
> > + */
> > +TEST_F(SingleStream, testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame)
> > +{
> > +	PerFrameControls capture(camera_);
> > +	capture.configure(StreamRole::VideoRecording);
> > +	capture.testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame();
> > +}
> > +
> > +TEST_F(SingleStream, testFramePreciseExposureChange)
> > +{
> > +	PerFrameControls capture(camera_);
> > +	capture.configure(StreamRole::VideoRecording);
> > +	capture.testFramePreciseExposureChange();
> > +}
> > +
> > +TEST_F(SingleStream, testFramePreciseGainChange)
> > +{
> > +	PerFrameControls capture(camera_);
> > +	capture.configure(StreamRole::VideoRecording);
> > +	capture.testFramePreciseGainChange();
> > +}
> > +
> > +TEST_F(SingleStream, testExposureGainIsAppliedOnFirstFrame)
> > +{
> > +	PerFrameControls capture(camera_);
> > +	capture.configure(StreamRole::VideoRecording);
> > +	capture.testExposureGainIsAppliedOnFirstFrame();
> > +}
> > +
> > +TEST_F(SingleStream, testExposureGainFromFirstRequestGetsApplied)
> > +{
> > +	PerFrameControls capture(camera_);
> > +	capture.configure(StreamRole::VideoRecording);
> > +	capture.testExposureGainFromFirstRequestGetsApplied();
> > +}
> > +
> > +TEST_F(SingleStream, testExposureGainFromFirstAndSecondRequestGetsApplied)
> > +{
> > +	PerFrameControls capture(camera_);
> > +	capture.configure(StreamRole::VideoRecording);
> > +	capture.testExposureGainFromFirstAndSecondRequestGetsApplied();
> > +}
> 
> This now shows up as
> 
> SingleStream.
>   testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame
>   testFramePreciseExposureChange
>   testFramePreciseGainChange
>   testExposureGainIsAppliedOnFirstFrame
>   testExposureGainFromFirstRequestGetsApplied
>   testExposureGainFromFirstAndSecondRequestGetsApplied
> 
> And we already have
> 
> CaptureTests/SingleStream.
>   Capture/Raw_1  # GetParam() = (Raw, 1)
>   Capture/Raw_2  # GetParam() = (Raw, 2)
>   Capture/Raw_3  # GetParam() = (Raw, 3)
>   Capture/Raw_5  # GetParam() = (Raw, 5)
>   Capture/Raw_8  # GetParam() = (Raw, 8)
>   Capture/Raw_13  # GetParam() = (Raw, 13)
>   Capture/Raw_21  # GetParam() = (Raw, 21)
>   Capture/Raw_34  # GetParam() = (Raw, 34)
>   Capture/Raw_55  # GetParam() = (Raw, 55)
>   Capture/Raw_89  # GetParam() = (Raw, 89)
> 
> I would have not instantiated these tests in capture_test.cpp but
> directly in per_frame_control.cpp and I would have named them
> "PerFrameControl". To do so you need to define a test class that
> derives from testing::Test in per_frame_control.cpp
> 
> 
> +/*
> + * Test Per frame controls
> + */
> +
> +class PerFrameControlTest : public testing::Test
> +{
> +protected:
> +       void SetUp() override;
> +       void TearDown() override;
> +
> +       std::shared_ptr<Camera> camera_;
> +};
> +
> +void PerFrameControlTest::SetUp()
> +{
> +       Environment *env = Environment::get();
> +
> +       camera_ = env->cm()->get(env->cameraId());
> +
> +       ASSERT_EQ(camera_->acquire(), 0);
> +}
> +
> +void PerFrameControlTest::TearDown()
> +{
> +       if (!camera_)
> +               return;
> +
> +       camera_->release();
> +       camera_.reset();
> +}
> +
> +TEST_F(PerFrameControlTest, testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame)
> .....
> 
> With this you get a dedicated test suite
> 
> PerFrameControlTest.
>   testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame
>   testFramePreciseExposureChange
>   testFramePreciseGainChange
>   testExposureGainIsAppliedOnFirstFrame
>   testExposureGainFromFirstRequestGetsApplied
>   testExposureGainFromFirstAndSecondRequestGetsApplied
> 
> Also, you now can drop the
> 
> 	void testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame();
> 	void testFramePreciseExposureChange();
> 	void testFramePreciseGainChange();
> 	void testExposureGainIsAppliedOnFirstFrame();
> 	void testExposureGainFromFirstRequestGetsApplied();
> 	void testExposureGainFromFirstAndSecondRequestGetsApplied();
> 
> functions from the PerFrameControl class, and implement the tests in
> the test definition instead of having them as wrappers that call the
> PerFrameControl class' functions
> 
> TL;DR do this:
> 
> TEST_F(PerFrameControlTest, testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame)
> {
> 	PerFrameControls capture(camera_);
> 	capture.configure(StreamRole::VideoRecording);
> 
> 	ControlList startValues;
> 	startValues.set(controls::ExposureTime, 5000);
> 	startValues.set(controls::AnalogueGain, 1.0);
> 
> 	auto timeSheet = capture.startCaptureWithTimeSheet(10, &startValues);
> 	auto &ts = *timeSheet;
> 
> 	/* wait a few frames to settle */
> 	ts[7].controls().set(controls::ExposureTime, 10000);
> 	ts[7].controls().set(controls::AnalogueGain, 4.0);
> 
>         ...
> }
> 
> 
> in place of:
> 
> TEST_F(PerFrameControlTest, testFramePreciseExposureChange)
> {
> 	PerFrameControls capture(camera_);
> 	capture.configure(StreamRole::VideoRecording);
> 	capture.testFramePreciseExposureChange();
> }
> 

Great. Thanks for that. I didn't want to spend too much time inside
google test before getting feedback on the overall direction. Your
proposal is perfect. I'll do that.

> 
> 
> > diff --git a/src/apps/lc-compliance/meson.build b/src/apps/lc-compliance/meson.build
> > index eb7b2d71..2a6f52af 100644
> > --- a/src/apps/lc-compliance/meson.build
> > +++ b/src/apps/lc-compliance/meson.build
> > @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ lc_compliance_sources = files([
> >      'capture_test.cpp',
> >      'environment.cpp',
> >      'main.cpp',
> > +    'per_frame_controls.cpp',
> >      'simple_capture.cpp',
> >      'time_sheet.cpp',
> >  ])
> > diff --git a/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.cpp b/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.cpp
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 00000000..eb7164e0
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.cpp
> > @@ -0,0 +1,316 @@
> > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later */
> > +/*
> > + * Copyright (C) 2024, Ideas on Board Oy
> > + *
> > + * per_frame_controls.cpp - Tests for per frame controls
> > + */
> > +#include "per_frame_controls.h"
> > +
> > +#include <gtest/gtest.h>
> > +
> > +#include "time_sheet.h"
> > +
> > +using namespace libcamera;
> > +
> > +static const bool doImageTests = true;
> > +
> > +PerFrameControls::PerFrameControls(std::shared_ptr<Camera> camera)
> > +	: SimpleCapture(camera)
> > +{
> > +}
> > +
> > +std::shared_ptr<TimeSheet>
> > +PerFrameControls::startCaptureWithTimeSheet(unsigned int framesToCapture, const ControlList *controls)
> > +{
> > +	ControlList ctrls(camera_->controls().idmap());
> 
> Empty line please
> 
> > +	/* Ensure defined default values */
> > +	ctrls.set(controls::AeEnable, false);
> > +	ctrls.set(controls::AeExposureMode, controls::ExposureCustom);
> > +	ctrls.set(controls::ExposureTime, 10000);
> > +	ctrls.set(controls::AnalogueGain, 1.0);
> > +
> > +	if (controls)
> > +		ctrls.merge(*controls, ControlList::MergePolicy::OverwriteExisting);
> > +
> > +	start(&ctrls);
> > +
> > +	queueCount_ = 0;
> > +	captureCount_ = 0;
> > +	captureLimit_ = framesToCapture;
> > +
> > +	auto timeSheet = std::make_shared<TimeSheet>(captureLimit_, camera_->controls().idmap());
> > +	timeSheet_ = timeSheet;
> 
> I'm sorry but I don't see why you would use a shared_ptr<> and a weak
> reference when the timeSheet_ ownership is not shared with any other
> component outside of this class

This class is still based on the Capture class. So you are free to write
tests and capture without a timesheet. In such tests the weak ptr will
automatically be empty and the queueRequest and requestComplete
functions still work properly. The lifetime of the timesheet is bound to
the scope of the test function. (You could even use the
startCaptureWithTimeSheet() and ignore the result, in wich case the
timesheet would get destroyed immediately).

> 
> > +	return timeSheet;
> > +}
> > +
> > +int PerFrameControls::queueRequest(Request *request)
> > +{
> > +	queueCount_++;
> > +	if (queueCount_ > captureLimit_)
> > +		return 0;
> > +
> > +	auto ts = timeSheet_.lock();
> > +	if (ts)
> > +		ts->prepareForQueue(request, queueCount_ - 1);
> > +
> > +	return camera_->queueRequest(request);
> > +}
> > +
> > +void PerFrameControls::requestComplete(Request *request)
> > +{
> > +	auto ts = timeSheet_.lock();
> > +	if (ts)
> > +		ts->handleCompleteRequest(request);
> > +
> > +	captureCount_++;
> > +	if (captureCount_ >= captureLimit_) {
> > +		loop_->exit(0);
> > +		return;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	request->reuse(Request::ReuseBuffers);
> > +	if (queueRequest(request))
> > +		loop_->exit(-EINVAL);
> > +}
> > +
> > +void PerFrameControls::runCaptureSession()
> > +{
> > +	Stream *stream = config_->at(0).stream();
> > +	const std::vector<std::unique_ptr<FrameBuffer>> &buffers = allocator_->buffers(stream);
> > +
> > +	/* Queue the recommended number of reqeuests. */
> 
> s/reqeuests/requests/
> 
> > +	for (const std::unique_ptr<FrameBuffer> &buffer : buffers) {
> > +		std::unique_ptr<Request> request = camera_->createRequest();
> > +		request->addBuffer(stream, buffer.get());
> > +		queueRequest(request.get());
> > +		requests_.push_back(std::move(request));
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	/* Run capture session. */
> > +	loop_ = new EventLoop();
> > +	loop_->exec();
> > +	stop();
> > +	delete loop_;
> > +}
> > +
> > +void PerFrameControls::testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame()
> > +{
> > +	ControlList startValues;
> > +	startValues.set(controls::ExposureTime, 5000);
> > +	startValues.set(controls::AnalogueGain, 1.0);
> > +
> > +	auto timeSheet = startCaptureWithTimeSheet(10, &startValues);
> > +	auto &ts = *timeSheet;
> 
> Why a temporary reference ?

The shared_ptr keeps the timesheet alive. The reference is just
syntactic shugar to be able to write ts[x].  I could replace these with
(*ts)[x] or ts->get(x) if you like that better.

> 
> > +
> > +	/* wait a few frames to settle */
> > +	ts[7].controls().set(controls::ExposureTime, 10000);
> > +	ts[7].controls().set(controls::AnalogueGain, 4.0);
> > +
> > +	runCaptureSession();
> > +
> > +	/* Uncomment this to debug the test */
> > +	/* ts.printAllInfos(); */
> 
> Please drop
> 
> > +
> > +	ASSERT_TRUE(ts[5].metadata().contains(controls::ExposureTime.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> > +	ASSERT_TRUE(ts[5].metadata().contains(controls::AnalogueGain.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> 
> Break long lines when possible
> 
> > +
> > +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[3].metadata().get(controls::ExposureTime).value(), 5000, 20);
> > +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[3].metadata().get(controls::AnalogueGain).value(), 1.0, 0.05);
> > +
> > +	//find the frame with the changes
> 
> No C++ comments please
> 
> > +	int exposureChangeIndex = 0;
> > +	for (unsigned i = 3; i < ts.size(); i++) {
> > +		if (ts[i].metadata().get(controls::ExposureTime).value() > 7500) {
> > +			exposureChangeIndex = i;
> > +			break;
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	int gainChangeIndex = 0;
> > +	for (unsigned i = 3; i < ts.size(); i++) {
> > +		if (ts[i].metadata().get(controls::AnalogueGain).value() > 2.0) {
> > +			gainChangeIndex = i;
> > +			break;
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	EXPECT_NE(exposureChangeIndex, 0) << "Exposure change not found in metadata";
> > +	EXPECT_NE(gainChangeIndex, 0) << "Gain change not found in metadata";
> > +	EXPECT_EQ(exposureChangeIndex, gainChangeIndex)
> > +		<< "Metadata contained gain and exposure changes on different frames";
> > +
> > +	if (doImageTests) {
> 
> Why do you think it should be optional ? If it has to be made optional
> it should be done in a way that doesn't depend on a compile time
> constant defined in the source code. Either make a series of separate
> image tests or add an option to lc-compliance.

The tests still have a value without the content based tests, so yes
this should propably be a option to lc-compliance. We could default that
to false to express the 'optional' aspect.

> 
> > +		int brightnessChangeIndex = 0;
> > +		for (unsigned i = 3; i < ts.size(); i++) {
> 
> The usage of '3' seems to be there to ignore the first three frames,
> right ? If so, what about defining a constant and add a comment ?
> 
> > +			if (ts[i].getBrightnessChange() > 1.3) {
> > +				EXPECT_EQ(brightnessChangeIndex, 0)
> > +					<< "Detected multiple frames with brightness increase (Wrong control delays?)";
> > +
> > +				if (!brightnessChangeIndex)
> > +					brightnessChangeIndex = i;
> > +			}
> > +		}
> > +
> > +		EXPECT_EQ(exposureChangeIndex, brightnessChangeIndex)
> > +			<< "Exposure change and mesaured brightness change were not on same frame. "
> > +			<< "(Wrong control delay?, Start frame event too late?)";
> > +		EXPECT_EQ(exposureChangeIndex, gainChangeIndex)
> > +			<< "Gain change and mesaured brightness change were not on same frame. "
> > +			<< "(Wrong control delay?, Start frame event too late?)";
> > +	}
> > +}
> > +
> > +void PerFrameControls::testFramePreciseExposureChange()
> > +{
> > +	auto timeSheet = startCaptureWithTimeSheet(10);
> > +	auto &ts = *timeSheet;
> > +
> > +	ts[3].controls().set(controls::ExposureTime, 5000);
> > +	/* wait a few frames to settle */
> > +	ts[6].controls().set(controls::ExposureTime, 20000);
> > +
> > +	runCaptureSession();
> > +
> > +	/* Uncomment this to debug the test */
> > +	/* ts.printAllInfos(); */
> 
> ditto
> 
> > +
> > +	ASSERT_TRUE(ts[5].metadata().contains(controls::ExposureTime.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> 
> break long lines
> 
> > +
> > +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[5].metadata().get(controls::ExposureTime).value(), 5000, 20);
> > +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[6].metadata().get(controls::ExposureTime).value(), 20000, 20);
> > +
> > +	if (doImageTests) {
> > +		/* No increase just before setting exposure */
> > +		EXPECT_NEAR(ts[5].getBrightnessChange(), 1.0, 0.05)
> > +			<< "Brightness changed too much before the expected time of change (control delay too high?).";
> > +		/*
> > +		* Todo: The change is brightness was a bit low
> 
> Wrong alignment
> 
> We don't Doxygen lc-compliance but try to use \todo for consistency
> with the rest of the code base
> 
> > +		* (Exposure time increase by 4x resulted in a brightness increase of < 2).
> > +		* This should be investigated.
> 
> Might be platform specific issue ?
> 
> > +		*/
> > +		EXPECT_GT(ts[6].getBrightnessChange(), 1.3)
> > +			<< "Brightness in frame " << 6 << " did not increase as expected (reference: "
> > +			<< ts[3].getSpotBrightness() << " current: " << ts[6].getSpotBrightness() << " )" << std::endl;
> > +
> > +		/* No increase just after setting exposure */
> > +		EXPECT_NEAR(ts[7].getBrightnessChange(), 1.0, 0.05)
> > +			<< "Brightness changed too much after the expected time of change (control delay too low?).";
> > +
> > +		/* No increase just after setting exposure */
> > +		EXPECT_NEAR(ts[8].getBrightnessChange(), 1.0, 0.05)
> > +			<< "Brightness changed too much 2 frames after the expected time of change (control delay too low?).";
> > +	}
> > +}
> > +
> > +void PerFrameControls::testFramePreciseGainChange()
> > +{
> > +	auto timeSheet = startCaptureWithTimeSheet(10);
> > +	auto &ts = *timeSheet;
> > +
> > +	ts[3].controls().set(controls::AnalogueGain, 1.0);
> > +	/* wait a few frames to settle */
> > +	ts[6].controls().set(controls::AnalogueGain, 4.0);
> > +
> > +	runCaptureSession();
> > +
> > +	/* Uncomment this, to debug the test */
> > +	/* ts.printAllInfos(); */
> > +
> > +	ASSERT_TRUE(ts[5].metadata().contains(controls::AnalogueGain.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> 
> Break this long line
> 
> > +
> > +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[5].metadata().get(controls::AnalogueGain).value(), 1.0, 0.1);
> > +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[6].metadata().get(controls::AnalogueGain).value(), 4.0, 0.1);
> > +
> > +	if (doImageTests) {
> > +		/* No increase just before setting gain */
> > +		EXPECT_NEAR(ts[5].getBrightnessChange(), 1.0, 0.05)
> > +			<< "Brightness changed too much before the expected time of change (control delay too high?).";
> > +		/*
> > +		* Todo: I see a brightness change of roughly half the expected one.
> 
> Wrong alignment here too, also \todo
> 
> > +		* This is not yet understood and needs investigation
> 
> Defintely some platform specific thing to investigate then ?
> 
> > +		*/
> > +		EXPECT_GT(ts[6].getBrightnessChange(), 1.7)
> > +			<< "Brightness in frame " << 6 << " did not increase as expected (reference: "
> > +			<< ts[5].getSpotBrightness() << " current: " << ts[6].getSpotBrightness() << " )" << std::endl;
> > +
> > +		/* No increase just after setting gain */
> > +		EXPECT_NEAR(ts[7].getBrightnessChange(), 1.0, 0.05)
> > +			<< "Brightness changed too much after the expected time of change (control delay too low?).";
> > +
> > +		/* No increase just after setting gain */
> > +		EXPECT_NEAR(ts[8].getBrightnessChange(), 1.0, 0.05)
> > +			<< "Brightness changed too much after the expected time of change (control delay too low?).";
> > +	}
> > +}
> > +
> > +void PerFrameControls::testExposureGainFromFirstRequestGetsApplied()
> > +{
> > +	auto timeSheet = startCaptureWithTimeSheet(5);
> > +	auto &ts = *timeSheet;
> > +
> > +	ts[0].controls().set(controls::ExposureTime, 10000);
> > +	ts[0].controls().set(controls::AnalogueGain, 4.0);
> > +
> > +	runCaptureSession();
> > +
> > +	ASSERT_TRUE(ts[4].metadata().contains(controls::ExposureTime.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> > +	ASSERT_TRUE(ts[4].metadata().contains(controls::AnalogueGain.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> 
> You can easily break these lines
> 
> > +
> > +	/* We expect it to be applied after 3 frames, the latest*/
> 
> What if a sensor takes a longer time to apply exposure and gain ?

Then we should adjust the test :-)

> 
> > +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[4].metadata().get(controls::ExposureTime).value(), 10000, 20);
> > +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[4].metadata().get(controls::AnalogueGain).value(), 4.0, 0.1);
> > +}
> > +
> > +void PerFrameControls::testExposureGainFromFirstAndSecondRequestGetsApplied()
> > +{
> > +	auto timeSheet = startCaptureWithTimeSheet(5);
> > +	auto &ts = *timeSheet;
> > +
> > +	ts[0].controls().set(controls::ExposureTime, 8000);
> > +	ts[0].controls().set(controls::AnalogueGain, 2.0);
> > +	ts[1].controls().set(controls::ExposureTime, 10000);
> > +	ts[1].controls().set(controls::AnalogueGain, 4.0);
> 
> As a general question, how do we guarantee the values you use to set
> exposure and gains are valid for all possible sensors ?
> 
> Shouldn't you inspect inspect the ControlInfo limit from
> Camera::controls() and clamp the values in the min/max range ?

I thought about that too. I started with values that most if not all
sensor we care atm should support. I'm weary if it is worth the effort
and that it would make the tests way less readable.  But you are right,
that is an unsolved issue.

> 
> > +
> > +	runCaptureSession();
> > +
> > +	ASSERT_TRUE(ts[4].metadata().contains(controls::ExposureTime.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> > +	ASSERT_TRUE(ts[4].metadata().contains(controls::AnalogueGain.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> 
> Ditto
> 
> > +
> > +	/* We expect it to be applied after 3 frames, the latest */
> > +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[4].metadata().get(controls::ExposureTime).value(), 10000, 20);
> > +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[4].metadata().get(controls::AnalogueGain).value(), 4.0, 0.1);
> > +}
> > +
> > +void PerFrameControls::testExposureGainIsAppliedOnFirstFrame()
> > +{
> > +	ControlList startValues;
> > +	startValues.set(controls::ExposureTime, 5000);
> > +	startValues.set(controls::AnalogueGain, 1.0);
> > +
> > +	auto ts1 = startCaptureWithTimeSheet(3, &startValues);
> > +
> > +	runCaptureSession();
> > +
> > +	ASSERT_TRUE((*ts1)[0].metadata().contains(controls::ExposureTime.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> > +	ASSERT_TRUE((*ts1)[0].metadata().contains(controls::AnalogueGain.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> > +
> > +	EXPECT_NEAR((*ts1)[0].metadata().get(controls::ExposureTime).value(), 5000, 20);
> > +	EXPECT_NEAR((*ts1)[0].metadata().get(controls::AnalogueGain).value(), 1.0, 0.02);
> > +
> > +	/* Second capture with different values to ensure we don't hit default/old values */
> > +	startValues.set(controls::ExposureTime, 15000);
> > +	startValues.set(controls::AnalogueGain, 4.0);
> > +
> > +	auto ts2 = startCaptureWithTimeSheet(3, &startValues);
> > +
> > +	runCaptureSession();
> > +
> > +	EXPECT_NEAR((*ts2)[0].metadata().get(controls::ExposureTime).value(), 15000, 20);
> > +	EXPECT_NEAR((*ts2)[0].metadata().get(controls::AnalogueGain).value(), 4.0, 0.02);
> > +
> > +	if (doImageTests) {
> > +		/* With 3x exposure and 4x gain we could expect a brightness increase of 2x */
> > +		double brightnessChange = ts2->get(1).getSpotBrightness() / ts1->get(1).getSpotBrightness();
> > +		EXPECT_GT(brightnessChange, 2.0);
> > +	}
> > +}
> > diff --git a/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.h b/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.h
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 00000000..a341c61f
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.h
> > @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
> > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later */
> > +/*
> > + * Copyright (C) 2024, Ideas on Board Oy
> > + *
> > + * per_frame_controls.h - Tests for per frame controls
> > + */
> > +
> > +#pragma once
> > +
> > +#include <memory>
> > +
> > +#include <libcamera/libcamera.h>
> > +
> > +#include "../common/event_loop.h"
> > +
> > +#include "simple_capture.h"
> > +#include "time_sheet.h"
> > +
> > +class PerFrameControls : public SimpleCapture
> > +{
> > +public:
> > +	PerFrameControls(std::shared_ptr<libcamera::Camera> camera);
> > +
> > +	std::shared_ptr<TimeSheet>
> > +	startCaptureWithTimeSheet(unsigned int framesToCapture, const libcamera::ControlList *controls = nullptr);
> > +	void runCaptureSession();
> > +
> > +	void testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame();
> > +	void testFramePreciseExposureChange();
> > +	void testFramePreciseGainChange();
> > +	void testExposureGainIsAppliedOnFirstFrame();
> > +	void testExposureGainFromFirstRequestGetsApplied();
> > +	void testExposureGainFromFirstAndSecondRequestGetsApplied();
> > +
> > +	int queueRequest(libcamera::Request *request);
> > +	void requestComplete(libcamera::Request *request) override;
> > +
> > +	unsigned int queueCount_;
> > +	unsigned int captureCount_;
> > +	unsigned int captureLimit_;
> > +
> > +	std::weak_ptr<TimeSheet> timeSheet_;
> > +};
> > --
> > 2.40.1
> >

Thanks for all the input :-)

Cheers,
Stefan

Hi Stefan

On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 04:53:03PM +0100, Stefan Klug wrote:
> Hi Jacopo,
>
> thanks for the review.
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 03:42:39PM +0100, Jacopo Mondi wrote:
> > Hi Stefan
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 01:12:14PM +0100, Stefan Klug wrote:
> > > These tests check if controls (only exposure time and analogue gain at
> > > the moment) get applied on the frame they were requested for.
> > >
> > > This is tested by looking at the metadata and the mean brightness
> > > of the image center.
> > >
> > > At the moment these tests fail. Fixes for the pipelines will be delivered
> > > in later patches.
> >
> > Nice!
> >
> > >
> > > To run only the teste, one can run:
> >
> > s/teste/test
> >
> > > lc-compliance -c <cam> -f "SingleStream.*"
> > >
> > > Note that the current implementation is a bit picky on what the camera
> > > actually sees. If it is too dark (or too bright), the tests will fail.
> > > Looking at a white wall in a normally lit office usually works.
> >
> > Mmm, is this ok for a compliance suite ? Is this the reason the image
> > tests are 'optional' ?
>
> Yes, in the beginning I wasn't sure how far we should go in first place.
> You basically have two options here:
> - Dynamically finding a "base" exposure time that works (e.g. bright
>   enough that you see a difference when the values increase and dim
>   enough to not saturate any pixel). This might work but has a large
>   dependency on the efficiency of the sensor and might still be flaky.
> - Building and distributing a physical testrig with defined brightness.
>   This is cool, but a larger task.
>
> So I started small added this 'optional' term so that we could collect
> some practical experience on how stable these tests are on different
> devices.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Klug <stefan.klug@ideasonboard.com>
> > > ---
> > >  src/apps/lc-compliance/capture_test.cpp       |  46 +++
> > >  src/apps/lc-compliance/meson.build            |   1 +
> > >  src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.cpp | 316 ++++++++++++++++++
> > >  src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.h   |  43 +++
> > >  4 files changed, 406 insertions(+)
> > >  create mode 100644 src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.cpp
> > >  create mode 100644 src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.h
> > >
> > > diff --git a/src/apps/lc-compliance/capture_test.cpp b/src/apps/lc-compliance/capture_test.cpp
> > > index 1dcfcf92..b19e8936 100644
> > > --- a/src/apps/lc-compliance/capture_test.cpp
> > > +++ b/src/apps/lc-compliance/capture_test.cpp
> > > @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
> > >  #include <gtest/gtest.h>
> > >
> > >  #include "environment.h"
> > > +#include "per_frame_controls.h"
> > >  #include "simple_capture.h"
> > >
> > >  using namespace libcamera;
> > > @@ -133,3 +134,48 @@ INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P(CaptureTests,
> > >  			 testing::Combine(testing::ValuesIn(ROLES),
> > >  					  testing::ValuesIn(NUMREQUESTS)),
> > >  			 SingleStream::nameParameters);
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > + * Test Per frame controls
> > > + */
> > > +TEST_F(SingleStream, testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame)
> > > +{
> > > +	PerFrameControls capture(camera_);
> > > +	capture.configure(StreamRole::VideoRecording);
> > > +	capture.testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame();
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +TEST_F(SingleStream, testFramePreciseExposureChange)
> > > +{
> > > +	PerFrameControls capture(camera_);
> > > +	capture.configure(StreamRole::VideoRecording);
> > > +	capture.testFramePreciseExposureChange();
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +TEST_F(SingleStream, testFramePreciseGainChange)
> > > +{
> > > +	PerFrameControls capture(camera_);
> > > +	capture.configure(StreamRole::VideoRecording);
> > > +	capture.testFramePreciseGainChange();
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +TEST_F(SingleStream, testExposureGainIsAppliedOnFirstFrame)
> > > +{
> > > +	PerFrameControls capture(camera_);
> > > +	capture.configure(StreamRole::VideoRecording);
> > > +	capture.testExposureGainIsAppliedOnFirstFrame();
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +TEST_F(SingleStream, testExposureGainFromFirstRequestGetsApplied)
> > > +{
> > > +	PerFrameControls capture(camera_);
> > > +	capture.configure(StreamRole::VideoRecording);
> > > +	capture.testExposureGainFromFirstRequestGetsApplied();
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +TEST_F(SingleStream, testExposureGainFromFirstAndSecondRequestGetsApplied)
> > > +{
> > > +	PerFrameControls capture(camera_);
> > > +	capture.configure(StreamRole::VideoRecording);
> > > +	capture.testExposureGainFromFirstAndSecondRequestGetsApplied();
> > > +}
> >
> > This now shows up as
> >
> > SingleStream.
> >   testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame
> >   testFramePreciseExposureChange
> >   testFramePreciseGainChange
> >   testExposureGainIsAppliedOnFirstFrame
> >   testExposureGainFromFirstRequestGetsApplied
> >   testExposureGainFromFirstAndSecondRequestGetsApplied
> >
> > And we already have
> >
> > CaptureTests/SingleStream.
> >   Capture/Raw_1  # GetParam() = (Raw, 1)
> >   Capture/Raw_2  # GetParam() = (Raw, 2)
> >   Capture/Raw_3  # GetParam() = (Raw, 3)
> >   Capture/Raw_5  # GetParam() = (Raw, 5)
> >   Capture/Raw_8  # GetParam() = (Raw, 8)
> >   Capture/Raw_13  # GetParam() = (Raw, 13)
> >   Capture/Raw_21  # GetParam() = (Raw, 21)
> >   Capture/Raw_34  # GetParam() = (Raw, 34)
> >   Capture/Raw_55  # GetParam() = (Raw, 55)
> >   Capture/Raw_89  # GetParam() = (Raw, 89)
> >
> > I would have not instantiated these tests in capture_test.cpp but
> > directly in per_frame_control.cpp and I would have named them
> > "PerFrameControl". To do so you need to define a test class that
> > derives from testing::Test in per_frame_control.cpp
> >
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Test Per frame controls
> > + */
> > +
> > +class PerFrameControlTest : public testing::Test
> > +{
> > +protected:
> > +       void SetUp() override;
> > +       void TearDown() override;
> > +
> > +       std::shared_ptr<Camera> camera_;
> > +};
> > +
> > +void PerFrameControlTest::SetUp()
> > +{
> > +       Environment *env = Environment::get();
> > +
> > +       camera_ = env->cm()->get(env->cameraId());
> > +
> > +       ASSERT_EQ(camera_->acquire(), 0);
> > +}
> > +
> > +void PerFrameControlTest::TearDown()
> > +{
> > +       if (!camera_)
> > +               return;
> > +
> > +       camera_->release();
> > +       camera_.reset();
> > +}
> > +
> > +TEST_F(PerFrameControlTest, testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame)
> > .....
> >
> > With this you get a dedicated test suite
> >
> > PerFrameControlTest.
> >   testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame
> >   testFramePreciseExposureChange
> >   testFramePreciseGainChange
> >   testExposureGainIsAppliedOnFirstFrame
> >   testExposureGainFromFirstRequestGetsApplied
> >   testExposureGainFromFirstAndSecondRequestGetsApplied
> >
> > Also, you now can drop the
> >
> > 	void testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame();
> > 	void testFramePreciseExposureChange();
> > 	void testFramePreciseGainChange();
> > 	void testExposureGainIsAppliedOnFirstFrame();
> > 	void testExposureGainFromFirstRequestGetsApplied();
> > 	void testExposureGainFromFirstAndSecondRequestGetsApplied();
> >
> > functions from the PerFrameControl class, and implement the tests in
> > the test definition instead of having them as wrappers that call the
> > PerFrameControl class' functions
> >
> > TL;DR do this:
> >
> > TEST_F(PerFrameControlTest, testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame)
> > {
> > 	PerFrameControls capture(camera_);
> > 	capture.configure(StreamRole::VideoRecording);
> >
> > 	ControlList startValues;
> > 	startValues.set(controls::ExposureTime, 5000);
> > 	startValues.set(controls::AnalogueGain, 1.0);
> >
> > 	auto timeSheet = capture.startCaptureWithTimeSheet(10, &startValues);
> > 	auto &ts = *timeSheet;
> >
> > 	/* wait a few frames to settle */
> > 	ts[7].controls().set(controls::ExposureTime, 10000);
> > 	ts[7].controls().set(controls::AnalogueGain, 4.0);
> >
> >         ...
> > }
> >
> >
> > in place of:
> >
> > TEST_F(PerFrameControlTest, testFramePreciseExposureChange)
> > {
> > 	PerFrameControls capture(camera_);
> > 	capture.configure(StreamRole::VideoRecording);
> > 	capture.testFramePreciseExposureChange();
> > }
> >
>
> Great. Thanks for that. I didn't want to spend too much time inside
> google test before getting feedback on the overall direction. Your
> proposal is perfect. I'll do that.
>
> >
> >
> > > diff --git a/src/apps/lc-compliance/meson.build b/src/apps/lc-compliance/meson.build
> > > index eb7b2d71..2a6f52af 100644
> > > --- a/src/apps/lc-compliance/meson.build
> > > +++ b/src/apps/lc-compliance/meson.build
> > > @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ lc_compliance_sources = files([
> > >      'capture_test.cpp',
> > >      'environment.cpp',
> > >      'main.cpp',
> > > +    'per_frame_controls.cpp',
> > >      'simple_capture.cpp',
> > >      'time_sheet.cpp',
> > >  ])
> > > diff --git a/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.cpp b/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.cpp
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 00000000..eb7164e0
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.cpp
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,316 @@
> > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later */
> > > +/*
> > > + * Copyright (C) 2024, Ideas on Board Oy
> > > + *
> > > + * per_frame_controls.cpp - Tests for per frame controls
> > > + */
> > > +#include "per_frame_controls.h"
> > > +
> > > +#include <gtest/gtest.h>
> > > +
> > > +#include "time_sheet.h"
> > > +
> > > +using namespace libcamera;
> > > +
> > > +static const bool doImageTests = true;
> > > +
> > > +PerFrameControls::PerFrameControls(std::shared_ptr<Camera> camera)
> > > +	: SimpleCapture(camera)
> > > +{
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +std::shared_ptr<TimeSheet>
> > > +PerFrameControls::startCaptureWithTimeSheet(unsigned int framesToCapture, const ControlList *controls)
> > > +{
> > > +	ControlList ctrls(camera_->controls().idmap());
> >
> > Empty line please
> >
> > > +	/* Ensure defined default values */
> > > +	ctrls.set(controls::AeEnable, false);
> > > +	ctrls.set(controls::AeExposureMode, controls::ExposureCustom);
> > > +	ctrls.set(controls::ExposureTime, 10000);
> > > +	ctrls.set(controls::AnalogueGain, 1.0);
> > > +
> > > +	if (controls)
> > > +		ctrls.merge(*controls, ControlList::MergePolicy::OverwriteExisting);
> > > +
> > > +	start(&ctrls);
> > > +
> > > +	queueCount_ = 0;
> > > +	captureCount_ = 0;
> > > +	captureLimit_ = framesToCapture;
> > > +
> > > +	auto timeSheet = std::make_shared<TimeSheet>(captureLimit_, camera_->controls().idmap());
> > > +	timeSheet_ = timeSheet;
> >
> > I'm sorry but I don't see why you would use a shared_ptr<> and a weak
> > reference when the timeSheet_ ownership is not shared with any other
> > component outside of this class
>
> This class is still based on the Capture class. So you are free to write
> tests and capture without a timesheet. In such tests the weak ptr will
> automatically be empty and the queueRequest and requestComplete
> functions still work properly. The lifetime of the timesheet is bound to
> the scope of the test function. (You could even use the
> startCaptureWithTimeSheet() and ignore the result, in wich case the
> timesheet would get destroyed immediately).
>

Let me re-cap (I'm looking at v3)

The PerFrameControlsCapture class:

- has a member std::weak_ptr<TimeSheet> timeSheet_
- has a
        std::shared_ptr<TimeSheet>
	startCaptureWithTimeSheet(unsigned int framesToCapture,
				  const libcamera::ControlList *controls = nullptr);

  function that

  * creates a TimeSheet as shared_ptr<> and returns it to the caller
  * Initialize the weak_ref<> class member with the shared_ptr<>

	auto timeSheet = std::make_shared<TimeSheet>(captureLimit_,
						     camera_->controls().idmap());
	timeSheet_ = timeSheet;
	return timeSheet;

so, if I read it right, you create a shared_ptr<> (refcount = 1),
initialize a weak_ptr<> (no reference count increment) return a
shared_ptr<> by copy (refcount = 2) and the end of the function scope
the local shared_ptr<> is destroyed (refcount = 1). Now the pointer
ownership is on the caller only, so you basically trasferred the
ownership outside of the class and refers to that within the class
with a weak_ptr<>.

In facts

--- a/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls_test.cpp
+++ b/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls_test.cpp
@@ -157,6 +157,8 @@ TEST_F(PerFrameControlTests, testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame)
        startValues.set(controls::AnalogueGain, 1.0);

        auto timeSheet = capture.startCaptureWithTimeSheet(10, &startValues);
+       std::cerr << " TIMESHEET USE COUNT: " << timeSheet.use_count();
+
        auto &ts = *timeSheet;

Gives me
         TIMESHEET USE COUNT: 1

if ever the caller does

        {
                ts =  capture.startCaptureWithTimeSheet(10, &startValues);
        }

The instance of the TimeSheet class the timeSheet_ member refers to gets
destroyed. It's 'safe' as it's a weak_ptr<> but I don't think that's what you
want.

If you want to share ownership of the timesheet between the
PerFrameControlsCapture class and the caller, so that it gets
destroyed when the the last one of the two owners gets destroyed,
just use a shared_ptr<>

--- a/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls_test.cpp
+++ b/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls_test.cpp
@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ public:
        unsigned int captureCount_;
        unsigned int captureLimit_;

-       std::weak_ptr<TimeSheet> timeSheet_;
+       std::shared_ptr<TimeSheet> timeSheet_;
 };

 static const bool doImageTests = true;
@@ -91,10 +91,9 @@ PerFrameControlsCapture::startCaptureWithTimeSheet(unsigned int framesToCapture,
        captureCount_ = 0;
        captureLimit_ = framesToCapture;

-       auto timeSheet = std::make_shared<TimeSheet>(captureLimit_,
+       timeSheet_ = std::make_shared<TimeSheet>(captureLimit_,
                                                     camera_->controls().idmap());
-       timeSheet_ = timeSheet;
-       return timeSheet;
+       return timeSheet_;
 }

 int PerFrameControlsCapture::queueRequest(Request *request)
@@ -103,18 +102,16 @@ int PerFrameControlsCapture::queueRequest(Request *request)
        if (queueCount_ > captureLimit_)
                return 0;

-       auto ts = timeSheet_.lock();
-       if (ts)
-               ts->prepareForQueue(request, queueCount_ - 1);
+       if (timeSheet_)
+               timeSheet_->prepareForQueue(request, queueCount_ - 1);

        return camera_->queueRequest(request);
 }

 void PerFrameControlsCapture::requestComplete(Request *request)
 {
-       auto ts = timeSheet_.lock();
-       if (ts)
-               ts->handleCompleteRequest(request);
+       if (timeSheet_)
+               timeSheet_->handleCompleteRequest(request);

        captureCount_++;
        if (captureCount_ >= captureLimit_) {

So that now

	auto timeSheet = capture.startCaptureWithTimeSheet(10, &startValues);
	std::cerr << " TIMESHEET USE COUNT: " << timeSheet.use_count();

Reads as
         TIMESHEET USE COUNT: 2

> >
> > > +	return timeSheet;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +int PerFrameControls::queueRequest(Request *request)
> > > +{
> > > +	queueCount_++;
> > > +	if (queueCount_ > captureLimit_)
> > > +		return 0;
> > > +
> > > +	auto ts = timeSheet_.lock();
> > > +	if (ts)
> > > +		ts->prepareForQueue(request, queueCount_ - 1);
> > > +
> > > +	return camera_->queueRequest(request);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +void PerFrameControls::requestComplete(Request *request)
> > > +{
> > > +	auto ts = timeSheet_.lock();
> > > +	if (ts)
> > > +		ts->handleCompleteRequest(request);
> > > +
> > > +	captureCount_++;
> > > +	if (captureCount_ >= captureLimit_) {
> > > +		loop_->exit(0);
> > > +		return;
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	request->reuse(Request::ReuseBuffers);
> > > +	if (queueRequest(request))
> > > +		loop_->exit(-EINVAL);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +void PerFrameControls::runCaptureSession()
> > > +{
> > > +	Stream *stream = config_->at(0).stream();
> > > +	const std::vector<std::unique_ptr<FrameBuffer>> &buffers = allocator_->buffers(stream);
> > > +
> > > +	/* Queue the recommended number of reqeuests. */
> >
> > s/reqeuests/requests/
> >
> > > +	for (const std::unique_ptr<FrameBuffer> &buffer : buffers) {
> > > +		std::unique_ptr<Request> request = camera_->createRequest();
> > > +		request->addBuffer(stream, buffer.get());
> > > +		queueRequest(request.get());
> > > +		requests_.push_back(std::move(request));
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	/* Run capture session. */
> > > +	loop_ = new EventLoop();
> > > +	loop_->exec();
> > > +	stop();
> > > +	delete loop_;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +void PerFrameControls::testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame()
> > > +{
> > > +	ControlList startValues;
> > > +	startValues.set(controls::ExposureTime, 5000);
> > > +	startValues.set(controls::AnalogueGain, 1.0);
> > > +
> > > +	auto timeSheet = startCaptureWithTimeSheet(10, &startValues);
> > > +	auto &ts = *timeSheet;
> >
> > Why a temporary reference ?
>
> The shared_ptr keeps the timesheet alive. The reference is just

It's a reference, so it doesn't increment the usage count

> syntactic shugar to be able to write ts[x].  I could replace these with
> (*ts)[x] or ts->get(x) if you like that better.
>

Ah ok, seeing a reference just to be able to "ts[]" brings more
questions on why the reference is there than clarity imho. Up to you.

> >
> > > +
> > > +	/* wait a few frames to settle */
> > > +	ts[7].controls().set(controls::ExposureTime, 10000);
> > > +	ts[7].controls().set(controls::AnalogueGain, 4.0);
> > > +
> > > +	runCaptureSession();
> > > +
> > > +	/* Uncomment this to debug the test */
> > > +	/* ts.printAllInfos(); */
> >
> > Please drop
> >
> > > +
> > > +	ASSERT_TRUE(ts[5].metadata().contains(controls::ExposureTime.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> > > +	ASSERT_TRUE(ts[5].metadata().contains(controls::AnalogueGain.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> >
> > Break long lines when possible
> >
> > > +
> > > +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[3].metadata().get(controls::ExposureTime).value(), 5000, 20);
> > > +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[3].metadata().get(controls::AnalogueGain).value(), 1.0, 0.05);
> > > +
> > > +	//find the frame with the changes
> >
> > No C++ comments please
> >
> > > +	int exposureChangeIndex = 0;
> > > +	for (unsigned i = 3; i < ts.size(); i++) {
> > > +		if (ts[i].metadata().get(controls::ExposureTime).value() > 7500) {
> > > +			exposureChangeIndex = i;
> > > +			break;
> > > +		}
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	int gainChangeIndex = 0;
> > > +	for (unsigned i = 3; i < ts.size(); i++) {
> > > +		if (ts[i].metadata().get(controls::AnalogueGain).value() > 2.0) {
> > > +			gainChangeIndex = i;
> > > +			break;
> > > +		}
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	EXPECT_NE(exposureChangeIndex, 0) << "Exposure change not found in metadata";
> > > +	EXPECT_NE(gainChangeIndex, 0) << "Gain change not found in metadata";
> > > +	EXPECT_EQ(exposureChangeIndex, gainChangeIndex)
> > > +		<< "Metadata contained gain and exposure changes on different frames";
> > > +
> > > +	if (doImageTests) {
> >
> > Why do you think it should be optional ? If it has to be made optional
> > it should be done in a way that doesn't depend on a compile time
> > constant defined in the source code. Either make a series of separate
> > image tests or add an option to lc-compliance.
>
> The tests still have a value without the content based tests, so yes
> this should propably be a option to lc-compliance. We could default that
> to false to express the 'optional' aspect.
>
> >
> > > +		int brightnessChangeIndex = 0;
> > > +		for (unsigned i = 3; i < ts.size(); i++) {
> >
> > The usage of '3' seems to be there to ignore the first three frames,
> > right ? If so, what about defining a constant and add a comment ?
> >
> > > +			if (ts[i].getBrightnessChange() > 1.3) {
> > > +				EXPECT_EQ(brightnessChangeIndex, 0)
> > > +					<< "Detected multiple frames with brightness increase (Wrong control delays?)";
> > > +
> > > +				if (!brightnessChangeIndex)
> > > +					brightnessChangeIndex = i;
> > > +			}
> > > +		}
> > > +
> > > +		EXPECT_EQ(exposureChangeIndex, brightnessChangeIndex)
> > > +			<< "Exposure change and mesaured brightness change were not on same frame. "
> > > +			<< "(Wrong control delay?, Start frame event too late?)";
> > > +		EXPECT_EQ(exposureChangeIndex, gainChangeIndex)
> > > +			<< "Gain change and mesaured brightness change were not on same frame. "
> > > +			<< "(Wrong control delay?, Start frame event too late?)";
> > > +	}
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +void PerFrameControls::testFramePreciseExposureChange()
> > > +{
> > > +	auto timeSheet = startCaptureWithTimeSheet(10);
> > > +	auto &ts = *timeSheet;
> > > +
> > > +	ts[3].controls().set(controls::ExposureTime, 5000);
> > > +	/* wait a few frames to settle */
> > > +	ts[6].controls().set(controls::ExposureTime, 20000);
> > > +
> > > +	runCaptureSession();
> > > +
> > > +	/* Uncomment this to debug the test */
> > > +	/* ts.printAllInfos(); */
> >
> > ditto
> >
> > > +
> > > +	ASSERT_TRUE(ts[5].metadata().contains(controls::ExposureTime.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> >
> > break long lines
> >
> > > +
> > > +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[5].metadata().get(controls::ExposureTime).value(), 5000, 20);
> > > +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[6].metadata().get(controls::ExposureTime).value(), 20000, 20);
> > > +
> > > +	if (doImageTests) {
> > > +		/* No increase just before setting exposure */
> > > +		EXPECT_NEAR(ts[5].getBrightnessChange(), 1.0, 0.05)
> > > +			<< "Brightness changed too much before the expected time of change (control delay too high?).";
> > > +		/*
> > > +		* Todo: The change is brightness was a bit low
> >
> > Wrong alignment
> >
> > We don't Doxygen lc-compliance but try to use \todo for consistency
> > with the rest of the code base
> >
> > > +		* (Exposure time increase by 4x resulted in a brightness increase of < 2).
> > > +		* This should be investigated.
> >
> > Might be platform specific issue ?
> >
> > > +		*/
> > > +		EXPECT_GT(ts[6].getBrightnessChange(), 1.3)
> > > +			<< "Brightness in frame " << 6 << " did not increase as expected (reference: "
> > > +			<< ts[3].getSpotBrightness() << " current: " << ts[6].getSpotBrightness() << " )" << std::endl;
> > > +
> > > +		/* No increase just after setting exposure */
> > > +		EXPECT_NEAR(ts[7].getBrightnessChange(), 1.0, 0.05)
> > > +			<< "Brightness changed too much after the expected time of change (control delay too low?).";
> > > +
> > > +		/* No increase just after setting exposure */
> > > +		EXPECT_NEAR(ts[8].getBrightnessChange(), 1.0, 0.05)
> > > +			<< "Brightness changed too much 2 frames after the expected time of change (control delay too low?).";
> > > +	}
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +void PerFrameControls::testFramePreciseGainChange()
> > > +{
> > > +	auto timeSheet = startCaptureWithTimeSheet(10);
> > > +	auto &ts = *timeSheet;
> > > +
> > > +	ts[3].controls().set(controls::AnalogueGain, 1.0);
> > > +	/* wait a few frames to settle */
> > > +	ts[6].controls().set(controls::AnalogueGain, 4.0);
> > > +
> > > +	runCaptureSession();
> > > +
> > > +	/* Uncomment this, to debug the test */
> > > +	/* ts.printAllInfos(); */
> > > +
> > > +	ASSERT_TRUE(ts[5].metadata().contains(controls::AnalogueGain.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> >
> > Break this long line
> >
> > > +
> > > +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[5].metadata().get(controls::AnalogueGain).value(), 1.0, 0.1);
> > > +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[6].metadata().get(controls::AnalogueGain).value(), 4.0, 0.1);
> > > +
> > > +	if (doImageTests) {
> > > +		/* No increase just before setting gain */
> > > +		EXPECT_NEAR(ts[5].getBrightnessChange(), 1.0, 0.05)
> > > +			<< "Brightness changed too much before the expected time of change (control delay too high?).";
> > > +		/*
> > > +		* Todo: I see a brightness change of roughly half the expected one.
> >
> > Wrong alignment here too, also \todo
> >
> > > +		* This is not yet understood and needs investigation
> >
> > Defintely some platform specific thing to investigate then ?
> >
> > > +		*/
> > > +		EXPECT_GT(ts[6].getBrightnessChange(), 1.7)
> > > +			<< "Brightness in frame " << 6 << " did not increase as expected (reference: "
> > > +			<< ts[5].getSpotBrightness() << " current: " << ts[6].getSpotBrightness() << " )" << std::endl;
> > > +
> > > +		/* No increase just after setting gain */
> > > +		EXPECT_NEAR(ts[7].getBrightnessChange(), 1.0, 0.05)
> > > +			<< "Brightness changed too much after the expected time of change (control delay too low?).";
> > > +
> > > +		/* No increase just after setting gain */
> > > +		EXPECT_NEAR(ts[8].getBrightnessChange(), 1.0, 0.05)
> > > +			<< "Brightness changed too much after the expected time of change (control delay too low?).";
> > > +	}
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +void PerFrameControls::testExposureGainFromFirstRequestGetsApplied()
> > > +{
> > > +	auto timeSheet = startCaptureWithTimeSheet(5);
> > > +	auto &ts = *timeSheet;
> > > +
> > > +	ts[0].controls().set(controls::ExposureTime, 10000);
> > > +	ts[0].controls().set(controls::AnalogueGain, 4.0);
> > > +
> > > +	runCaptureSession();
> > > +
> > > +	ASSERT_TRUE(ts[4].metadata().contains(controls::ExposureTime.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> > > +	ASSERT_TRUE(ts[4].metadata().contains(controls::AnalogueGain.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> >
> > You can easily break these lines
> >
> > > +
> > > +	/* We expect it to be applied after 3 frames, the latest*/
> >
> > What if a sensor takes a longer time to apply exposure and gain ?
>
> Then we should adjust the test :-)
>
> >
> > > +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[4].metadata().get(controls::ExposureTime).value(), 10000, 20);
> > > +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[4].metadata().get(controls::AnalogueGain).value(), 4.0, 0.1);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +void PerFrameControls::testExposureGainFromFirstAndSecondRequestGetsApplied()
> > > +{
> > > +	auto timeSheet = startCaptureWithTimeSheet(5);
> > > +	auto &ts = *timeSheet;
> > > +
> > > +	ts[0].controls().set(controls::ExposureTime, 8000);
> > > +	ts[0].controls().set(controls::AnalogueGain, 2.0);
> > > +	ts[1].controls().set(controls::ExposureTime, 10000);
> > > +	ts[1].controls().set(controls::AnalogueGain, 4.0);
> >
> > As a general question, how do we guarantee the values you use to set
> > exposure and gains are valid for all possible sensors ?
> >
> > Shouldn't you inspect inspect the ControlInfo limit from
> > Camera::controls() and clamp the values in the min/max range ?
>
> I thought about that too. I started with values that most if not all
> sensor we care atm should support. I'm weary if it is worth the effort
> and that it would make the tests way less readable.  But you are right,
> that is an unsolved issue.

Recording it with a \todo comment is fine for now

>
> >
> > > +
> > > +	runCaptureSession();
> > > +
> > > +	ASSERT_TRUE(ts[4].metadata().contains(controls::ExposureTime.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> > > +	ASSERT_TRUE(ts[4].metadata().contains(controls::AnalogueGain.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> >
> > Ditto
> >
> > > +
> > > +	/* We expect it to be applied after 3 frames, the latest */
> > > +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[4].metadata().get(controls::ExposureTime).value(), 10000, 20);
> > > +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[4].metadata().get(controls::AnalogueGain).value(), 4.0, 0.1);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +void PerFrameControls::testExposureGainIsAppliedOnFirstFrame()
> > > +{
> > > +	ControlList startValues;
> > > +	startValues.set(controls::ExposureTime, 5000);
> > > +	startValues.set(controls::AnalogueGain, 1.0);
> > > +
> > > +	auto ts1 = startCaptureWithTimeSheet(3, &startValues);
> > > +
> > > +	runCaptureSession();
> > > +
> > > +	ASSERT_TRUE((*ts1)[0].metadata().contains(controls::ExposureTime.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> > > +	ASSERT_TRUE((*ts1)[0].metadata().contains(controls::AnalogueGain.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> > > +
> > > +	EXPECT_NEAR((*ts1)[0].metadata().get(controls::ExposureTime).value(), 5000, 20);
> > > +	EXPECT_NEAR((*ts1)[0].metadata().get(controls::AnalogueGain).value(), 1.0, 0.02);
> > > +
> > > +	/* Second capture with different values to ensure we don't hit default/old values */
> > > +	startValues.set(controls::ExposureTime, 15000);
> > > +	startValues.set(controls::AnalogueGain, 4.0);
> > > +
> > > +	auto ts2 = startCaptureWithTimeSheet(3, &startValues);
> > > +
> > > +	runCaptureSession();
> > > +
> > > +	EXPECT_NEAR((*ts2)[0].metadata().get(controls::ExposureTime).value(), 15000, 20);
> > > +	EXPECT_NEAR((*ts2)[0].metadata().get(controls::AnalogueGain).value(), 4.0, 0.02);
> > > +
> > > +	if (doImageTests) {
> > > +		/* With 3x exposure and 4x gain we could expect a brightness increase of 2x */
> > > +		double brightnessChange = ts2->get(1).getSpotBrightness() / ts1->get(1).getSpotBrightness();
> > > +		EXPECT_GT(brightnessChange, 2.0);
> > > +	}
> > > +}
> > > diff --git a/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.h b/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.h
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 00000000..a341c61f
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.h
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
> > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later */
> > > +/*
> > > + * Copyright (C) 2024, Ideas on Board Oy
> > > + *
> > > + * per_frame_controls.h - Tests for per frame controls
> > > + */
> > > +
> > > +#pragma once
> > > +
> > > +#include <memory>
> > > +
> > > +#include <libcamera/libcamera.h>
> > > +
> > > +#include "../common/event_loop.h"
> > > +
> > > +#include "simple_capture.h"
> > > +#include "time_sheet.h"
> > > +
> > > +class PerFrameControls : public SimpleCapture
> > > +{
> > > +public:
> > > +	PerFrameControls(std::shared_ptr<libcamera::Camera> camera);
> > > +
> > > +	std::shared_ptr<TimeSheet>
> > > +	startCaptureWithTimeSheet(unsigned int framesToCapture, const libcamera::ControlList *controls = nullptr);
> > > +	void runCaptureSession();
> > > +
> > > +	void testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame();
> > > +	void testFramePreciseExposureChange();
> > > +	void testFramePreciseGainChange();
> > > +	void testExposureGainIsAppliedOnFirstFrame();
> > > +	void testExposureGainFromFirstRequestGetsApplied();
> > > +	void testExposureGainFromFirstAndSecondRequestGetsApplied();
> > > +
> > > +	int queueRequest(libcamera::Request *request);
> > > +	void requestComplete(libcamera::Request *request) override;
> > > +
> > > +	unsigned int queueCount_;
> > > +	unsigned int captureCount_;
> > > +	unsigned int captureLimit_;
> > > +
> > > +	std::weak_ptr<TimeSheet> timeSheet_;
> > > +};
> > > --
> > > 2.40.1
> > >
>
> Thanks for all the input :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Stefan

Hi Jacopo,

On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 09:47:53AM +0100, Jacopo Mondi wrote:
> Hi Stefan
> 
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 04:53:03PM +0100, Stefan Klug wrote:
> > Hi Jacopo,
> >
> > thanks for the review.
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 03:42:39PM +0100, Jacopo Mondi wrote:
> > > Hi Stefan
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 01:12:14PM +0100, Stefan Klug wrote:
> > > > These tests check if controls (only exposure time and analogue gain at
> > > > the moment) get applied on the frame they were requested for.
> > > >
> > > > This is tested by looking at the metadata and the mean brightness
> > > > of the image center.
> > > >
> > > > At the moment these tests fail. Fixes for the pipelines will be delivered
> > > > in later patches.
> > >
> > > Nice!
> > >
> > > >
> > > > To run only the teste, one can run:
> > >
> > > s/teste/test
> > >
> > > > lc-compliance -c <cam> -f "SingleStream.*"
> > > >
> > > > Note that the current implementation is a bit picky on what the camera
> > > > actually sees. If it is too dark (or too bright), the tests will fail.
> > > > Looking at a white wall in a normally lit office usually works.
> > >
> > > Mmm, is this ok for a compliance suite ? Is this the reason the image
> > > tests are 'optional' ?
> >
> > Yes, in the beginning I wasn't sure how far we should go in first place.
> > You basically have two options here:
> > - Dynamically finding a "base" exposure time that works (e.g. bright
> >   enough that you see a difference when the values increase and dim
> >   enough to not saturate any pixel). This might work but has a large
> >   dependency on the efficiency of the sensor and might still be flaky.
> > - Building and distributing a physical testrig with defined brightness.
> >   This is cool, but a larger task.
> >
> > So I started small added this 'optional' term so that we could collect
> > some practical experience on how stable these tests are on different
> > devices.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Klug <stefan.klug@ideasonboard.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  src/apps/lc-compliance/capture_test.cpp       |  46 +++
> > > >  src/apps/lc-compliance/meson.build            |   1 +
> > > >  src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.cpp | 316 ++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.h   |  43 +++
> > > >  4 files changed, 406 insertions(+)
> > > >  create mode 100644 src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.cpp
> > > >  create mode 100644 src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.h
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/src/apps/lc-compliance/capture_test.cpp b/src/apps/lc-compliance/capture_test.cpp
> > > > index 1dcfcf92..b19e8936 100644
> > > > --- a/src/apps/lc-compliance/capture_test.cpp
> > > > +++ b/src/apps/lc-compliance/capture_test.cpp
> > > > @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
> > > >  #include <gtest/gtest.h>
> > > >
> > > >  #include "environment.h"
> > > > +#include "per_frame_controls.h"
> > > >  #include "simple_capture.h"
> > > >
> > > >  using namespace libcamera;
> > > > @@ -133,3 +134,48 @@ INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P(CaptureTests,
> > > >  			 testing::Combine(testing::ValuesIn(ROLES),
> > > >  					  testing::ValuesIn(NUMREQUESTS)),
> > > >  			 SingleStream::nameParameters);
> > > > +
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * Test Per frame controls
> > > > + */
> > > > +TEST_F(SingleStream, testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	PerFrameControls capture(camera_);
> > > > +	capture.configure(StreamRole::VideoRecording);
> > > > +	capture.testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame();
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +TEST_F(SingleStream, testFramePreciseExposureChange)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	PerFrameControls capture(camera_);
> > > > +	capture.configure(StreamRole::VideoRecording);
> > > > +	capture.testFramePreciseExposureChange();
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +TEST_F(SingleStream, testFramePreciseGainChange)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	PerFrameControls capture(camera_);
> > > > +	capture.configure(StreamRole::VideoRecording);
> > > > +	capture.testFramePreciseGainChange();
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +TEST_F(SingleStream, testExposureGainIsAppliedOnFirstFrame)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	PerFrameControls capture(camera_);
> > > > +	capture.configure(StreamRole::VideoRecording);
> > > > +	capture.testExposureGainIsAppliedOnFirstFrame();
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +TEST_F(SingleStream, testExposureGainFromFirstRequestGetsApplied)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	PerFrameControls capture(camera_);
> > > > +	capture.configure(StreamRole::VideoRecording);
> > > > +	capture.testExposureGainFromFirstRequestGetsApplied();
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +TEST_F(SingleStream, testExposureGainFromFirstAndSecondRequestGetsApplied)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	PerFrameControls capture(camera_);
> > > > +	capture.configure(StreamRole::VideoRecording);
> > > > +	capture.testExposureGainFromFirstAndSecondRequestGetsApplied();
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > This now shows up as
> > >
> > > SingleStream.
> > >   testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame
> > >   testFramePreciseExposureChange
> > >   testFramePreciseGainChange
> > >   testExposureGainIsAppliedOnFirstFrame
> > >   testExposureGainFromFirstRequestGetsApplied
> > >   testExposureGainFromFirstAndSecondRequestGetsApplied
> > >
> > > And we already have
> > >
> > > CaptureTests/SingleStream.
> > >   Capture/Raw_1  # GetParam() = (Raw, 1)
> > >   Capture/Raw_2  # GetParam() = (Raw, 2)
> > >   Capture/Raw_3  # GetParam() = (Raw, 3)
> > >   Capture/Raw_5  # GetParam() = (Raw, 5)
> > >   Capture/Raw_8  # GetParam() = (Raw, 8)
> > >   Capture/Raw_13  # GetParam() = (Raw, 13)
> > >   Capture/Raw_21  # GetParam() = (Raw, 21)
> > >   Capture/Raw_34  # GetParam() = (Raw, 34)
> > >   Capture/Raw_55  # GetParam() = (Raw, 55)
> > >   Capture/Raw_89  # GetParam() = (Raw, 89)
> > >
> > > I would have not instantiated these tests in capture_test.cpp but
> > > directly in per_frame_control.cpp and I would have named them
> > > "PerFrameControl". To do so you need to define a test class that
> > > derives from testing::Test in per_frame_control.cpp
> > >
> > >
> > > +/*
> > > + * Test Per frame controls
> > > + */
> > > +
> > > +class PerFrameControlTest : public testing::Test
> > > +{
> > > +protected:
> > > +       void SetUp() override;
> > > +       void TearDown() override;
> > > +
> > > +       std::shared_ptr<Camera> camera_;
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +void PerFrameControlTest::SetUp()
> > > +{
> > > +       Environment *env = Environment::get();
> > > +
> > > +       camera_ = env->cm()->get(env->cameraId());
> > > +
> > > +       ASSERT_EQ(camera_->acquire(), 0);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +void PerFrameControlTest::TearDown()
> > > +{
> > > +       if (!camera_)
> > > +               return;
> > > +
> > > +       camera_->release();
> > > +       camera_.reset();
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +TEST_F(PerFrameControlTest, testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame)
> > > .....
> > >
> > > With this you get a dedicated test suite
> > >
> > > PerFrameControlTest.
> > >   testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame
> > >   testFramePreciseExposureChange
> > >   testFramePreciseGainChange
> > >   testExposureGainIsAppliedOnFirstFrame
> > >   testExposureGainFromFirstRequestGetsApplied
> > >   testExposureGainFromFirstAndSecondRequestGetsApplied
> > >
> > > Also, you now can drop the
> > >
> > > 	void testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame();
> > > 	void testFramePreciseExposureChange();
> > > 	void testFramePreciseGainChange();
> > > 	void testExposureGainIsAppliedOnFirstFrame();
> > > 	void testExposureGainFromFirstRequestGetsApplied();
> > > 	void testExposureGainFromFirstAndSecondRequestGetsApplied();
> > >
> > > functions from the PerFrameControl class, and implement the tests in
> > > the test definition instead of having them as wrappers that call the
> > > PerFrameControl class' functions
> > >
> > > TL;DR do this:
> > >
> > > TEST_F(PerFrameControlTest, testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame)
> > > {
> > > 	PerFrameControls capture(camera_);
> > > 	capture.configure(StreamRole::VideoRecording);
> > >
> > > 	ControlList startValues;
> > > 	startValues.set(controls::ExposureTime, 5000);
> > > 	startValues.set(controls::AnalogueGain, 1.0);
> > >
> > > 	auto timeSheet = capture.startCaptureWithTimeSheet(10, &startValues);
> > > 	auto &ts = *timeSheet;
> > >
> > > 	/* wait a few frames to settle */
> > > 	ts[7].controls().set(controls::ExposureTime, 10000);
> > > 	ts[7].controls().set(controls::AnalogueGain, 4.0);
> > >
> > >         ...
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > > in place of:
> > >
> > > TEST_F(PerFrameControlTest, testFramePreciseExposureChange)
> > > {
> > > 	PerFrameControls capture(camera_);
> > > 	capture.configure(StreamRole::VideoRecording);
> > > 	capture.testFramePreciseExposureChange();
> > > }
> > >
> >
> > Great. Thanks for that. I didn't want to spend too much time inside
> > google test before getting feedback on the overall direction. Your
> > proposal is perfect. I'll do that.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > diff --git a/src/apps/lc-compliance/meson.build b/src/apps/lc-compliance/meson.build
> > > > index eb7b2d71..2a6f52af 100644
> > > > --- a/src/apps/lc-compliance/meson.build
> > > > +++ b/src/apps/lc-compliance/meson.build
> > > > @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ lc_compliance_sources = files([
> > > >      'capture_test.cpp',
> > > >      'environment.cpp',
> > > >      'main.cpp',
> > > > +    'per_frame_controls.cpp',
> > > >      'simple_capture.cpp',
> > > >      'time_sheet.cpp',
> > > >  ])
> > > > diff --git a/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.cpp b/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.cpp
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 00000000..eb7164e0
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.cpp
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,316 @@
> > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later */
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * Copyright (C) 2024, Ideas on Board Oy
> > > > + *
> > > > + * per_frame_controls.cpp - Tests for per frame controls
> > > > + */
> > > > +#include "per_frame_controls.h"
> > > > +
> > > > +#include <gtest/gtest.h>
> > > > +
> > > > +#include "time_sheet.h"
> > > > +
> > > > +using namespace libcamera;
> > > > +
> > > > +static const bool doImageTests = true;
> > > > +
> > > > +PerFrameControls::PerFrameControls(std::shared_ptr<Camera> camera)
> > > > +	: SimpleCapture(camera)
> > > > +{
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +std::shared_ptr<TimeSheet>
> > > > +PerFrameControls::startCaptureWithTimeSheet(unsigned int framesToCapture, const ControlList *controls)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	ControlList ctrls(camera_->controls().idmap());
> > >
> > > Empty line please
> > >
> > > > +	/* Ensure defined default values */
> > > > +	ctrls.set(controls::AeEnable, false);
> > > > +	ctrls.set(controls::AeExposureMode, controls::ExposureCustom);
> > > > +	ctrls.set(controls::ExposureTime, 10000);
> > > > +	ctrls.set(controls::AnalogueGain, 1.0);
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (controls)
> > > > +		ctrls.merge(*controls, ControlList::MergePolicy::OverwriteExisting);
> > > > +
> > > > +	start(&ctrls);
> > > > +
> > > > +	queueCount_ = 0;
> > > > +	captureCount_ = 0;
> > > > +	captureLimit_ = framesToCapture;
> > > > +
> > > > +	auto timeSheet = std::make_shared<TimeSheet>(captureLimit_, camera_->controls().idmap());
> > > > +	timeSheet_ = timeSheet;
> > >
> > > I'm sorry but I don't see why you would use a shared_ptr<> and a weak
> > > reference when the timeSheet_ ownership is not shared with any other
> > > component outside of this class
> >
> > This class is still based on the Capture class. So you are free to write
> > tests and capture without a timesheet. In such tests the weak ptr will
> > automatically be empty and the queueRequest and requestComplete
> > functions still work properly. The lifetime of the timesheet is bound to
> > the scope of the test function. (You could even use the
> > startCaptureWithTimeSheet() and ignore the result, in wich case the
> > timesheet would get destroyed immediately).
> >
> 
> Let me re-cap (I'm looking at v3)
> 
> The PerFrameControlsCapture class:
> 
> - has a member std::weak_ptr<TimeSheet> timeSheet_
> - has a
>         std::shared_ptr<TimeSheet>
> 	startCaptureWithTimeSheet(unsigned int framesToCapture,
> 				  const libcamera::ControlList *controls = nullptr);
> 
>   function that
> 
>   * creates a TimeSheet as shared_ptr<> and returns it to the caller
>   * Initialize the weak_ref<> class member with the shared_ptr<>
> 
> 	auto timeSheet = std::make_shared<TimeSheet>(captureLimit_,
> 						     camera_->controls().idmap());
> 	timeSheet_ = timeSheet;
> 	return timeSheet;
> 
> so, if I read it right, you create a shared_ptr<> (refcount = 1),
> initialize a weak_ptr<> (no reference count increment) return a
> shared_ptr<> by copy (refcount = 2) and the end of the function scope
> the local shared_ptr<> is destroyed (refcount = 1). Now the pointer
> ownership is on the caller only, so you basically trasferred the
> ownership outside of the class and refers to that within the class
> with a weak_ptr<>.

That's was exactly the plan. The only reason for the weak_ptr to exist
at all, is to be able to access a potential timesheet inside requestComplete
and queueRequest.

> 
> In facts
> 
> --- a/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls_test.cpp
> +++ b/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls_test.cpp
> @@ -157,6 +157,8 @@ TEST_F(PerFrameControlTests, testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame)
>         startValues.set(controls::AnalogueGain, 1.0);
> 
>         auto timeSheet = capture.startCaptureWithTimeSheet(10, &startValues);
> +       std::cerr << " TIMESHEET USE COUNT: " << timeSheet.use_count();
> +
>         auto &ts = *timeSheet;
> 
> Gives me
>          TIMESHEET USE COUNT: 1
> 
> if ever the caller does
> 
>         {
>                 ts =  capture.startCaptureWithTimeSheet(10, &startValues);
>         }
> 
> The instance of the TimeSheet class the timeSheet_ member refers to gets
> destroyed. It's 'safe' as it's a weak_ptr<> but I don't think that's what you
> want.

No, that was intended. As the lifetime of the timesheet shall be bound
to the test function and not to the lifetime of the
PerFrameControlsCapture instance.

But I think I understand what bothers you. And thinking about that I
came to a solution that might be easier to follow. What about the
following proposal (not compiled though):

- startCaptureWithTimsheet becomes a simple startCapture
- timesheet in instanciated in the test and passed as pointer to
  runCaptureSession.
- that also removes the nasty "auto &ts = *timesheet" inside the tests-


diff --git a/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls_test.cpp b/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls_test.cpp
index 589ef517..d98ab3a7 100644
--- a/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls_test.cpp
+++ b/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls_test.cpp
@@ -48,11 +48,10 @@ class PerFrameControlsCapture : public SimpleCapture
 public:
        PerFrameControlsCapture(std::shared_ptr<libcamera::Camera> camera);
 
-       std::shared_ptr<TimeSheet>
-       startCaptureWithTimeSheet(unsigned int framesToCapture,
+       void startCapture(unsigned int framesToCapture,
                                  const libcamera::ControlList *controls = nullptr);
 
-       void runCaptureSession();
+       void runCaptureSession(TimeSheet* ts);
        int queueRequest(libcamera::Request *request);
        void requestComplete(libcamera::Request *request) override;
 
@@ -60,7 +59,7 @@ public:
        unsigned int captureCount_;
        unsigned int captureLimit_;
 
-       std::weak_ptr<TimeSheet> timeSheet_;
+       TimeSheet* sessionTimeSheet_;
 };
 
 static const bool doImageTests = true;
@@ -70,8 +69,7 @@ PerFrameControlsCapture::PerFrameControlsCapture(std::shared_ptr<Camera> camera)
 {
 }
 
-std::shared_ptr<TimeSheet>
-PerFrameControlsCapture::startCaptureWithTimeSheet(unsigned int framesToCapture,
+void PerFrameControlsCapture::startCapture(unsigned int framesToCapture,
                                                   const ControlList *controls)
 {
        ControlList ctrls(camera_->controls().idmap());
@@ -90,10 +88,6 @@ PerFrameControlsCapture::startCaptureWithTimeSheet(unsigned int framesToCapture,
        queueCount_ = 0;
        captureCount_ = 0;
        captureLimit_ = framesToCapture;
-
-       auto timeSheet = std::make_shared<TimeSheet>(captureLimit_, camera_);
-       timeSheet_ = timeSheet;
-       return timeSheet;
 }
 
 int PerFrameControlsCapture::queueRequest(Request *request)
@@ -102,18 +96,16 @@ int PerFrameControlsCapture::queueRequest(Request *request)
        if (queueCount_ > captureLimit_)
                return 0;
 
-       auto ts = timeSheet_.lock();
-       if (ts)
-               ts->prepareForQueue(request, queueCount_ - 1);
+       if (sessionTimeSheet_)
+               sessionTimeSheet_->prepareForQueue(request, queueCount_ - 1);
 
        return camera_->queueRequest(request);
 }
 
 void PerFrameControlsCapture::requestComplete(Request *request)
 {
-       auto ts = timeSheet_.lock();
-       if (ts)
-               ts->handleCompleteRequest(request);
+       if (sessionTimeSheet_)
+               sessionTimeSheet_->handleCompleteRequest(request);
 
        captureCount_++;
        if (captureCount_ >= captureLimit_) {
@@ -126,11 +118,13 @@ void PerFrameControlsCapture::requestComplete(Request *request)
                loop_->exit(-EINVAL);
 }
 
-void PerFrameControlsCapture::runCaptureSession()
+void PerFrameControlsCapture::runCaptureSession(TimeSheet* ts)
 {
        Stream *stream = config_->at(0).stream();
        const std::vector<std::unique_ptr<FrameBuffer>> &buffers = allocator_->buffers(stream);
 
+       sessionTimeSheet_ = ts;
+
        /* Queue the recommended number of requests. */
        for (const std::unique_ptr<FrameBuffer> &buffer : buffers) {
                std::unique_ptr<Request> request = camera_->createRequest();
@@ -144,6 +138,7 @@ void PerFrameControlsCapture::runCaptureSession()
        loop_->exec();
        stop();
        delete loop_;
+       sessionTimeSheet_ = nullptr;
 }
 
 TEST_F(PerFrameControlTests, testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame)
@@ -155,14 +150,14 @@ TEST_F(PerFrameControlTests, testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame)
        startValues.set(controls::ExposureTime, 5000);
        startValues.set(controls::AnalogueGain, 1.0);
 
-       auto timeSheet = capture.startCaptureWithTimeSheet(10, &startValues);
-       auto &ts = *timeSheet;
+       capture.startCaptureWithTimeSheet(10, &startValues);
 
+       TimeSheet ts(10);
        /* wait a few frames to settle */
        ts[7].controls().set(controls::ExposureTime, 10000);
        ts[7].controls().set(controls::AnalogueGain, 4.0);
 
-       capture.runCaptureSession();
+       capture.runCaptureSession(&ts);
 
        ASSERT_TRUE(ts[5].metadata().contains(controls::ExposureTime.id()))
                << "Required metadata entry is missing";


> 
> If you want to share ownership of the timesheet between the
> PerFrameControlsCapture class and the caller, so that it gets
> destroyed when the the last one of the two owners gets destroyed,
> just use a shared_ptr<>
> 
> --- a/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls_test.cpp
> +++ b/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls_test.cpp
> @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ public:
>         unsigned int captureCount_;
>         unsigned int captureLimit_;
> 
> -       std::weak_ptr<TimeSheet> timeSheet_;
> +       std::shared_ptr<TimeSheet> timeSheet_;
>  };
> 
>  static const bool doImageTests = true;
> @@ -91,10 +91,9 @@ PerFrameControlsCapture::startCaptureWithTimeSheet(unsigned int framesToCapture,
>         captureCount_ = 0;
>         captureLimit_ = framesToCapture;
> 
> -       auto timeSheet = std::make_shared<TimeSheet>(captureLimit_,
> +       timeSheet_ = std::make_shared<TimeSheet>(captureLimit_,
>                                                      camera_->controls().idmap());
> -       timeSheet_ = timeSheet;
> -       return timeSheet;
> +       return timeSheet_;
>  }
> 
>  int PerFrameControlsCapture::queueRequest(Request *request)
> @@ -103,18 +102,16 @@ int PerFrameControlsCapture::queueRequest(Request *request)
>         if (queueCount_ > captureLimit_)
>                 return 0;
> 
> -       auto ts = timeSheet_.lock();
> -       if (ts)
> -               ts->prepareForQueue(request, queueCount_ - 1);
> +       if (timeSheet_)
> +               timeSheet_->prepareForQueue(request, queueCount_ - 1);
> 
>         return camera_->queueRequest(request);
>  }
> 
>  void PerFrameControlsCapture::requestComplete(Request *request)
>  {
> -       auto ts = timeSheet_.lock();
> -       if (ts)
> -               ts->handleCompleteRequest(request);
> +       if (timeSheet_)
> +               timeSheet_->handleCompleteRequest(request);
> 
>         captureCount_++;
>         if (captureCount_ >= captureLimit_) {
> 
> So that now
> 
> 	auto timeSheet = capture.startCaptureWithTimeSheet(10, &startValues);
> 	std::cerr << " TIMESHEET USE COUNT: " << timeSheet.use_count();
> 
> Reads as
>          TIMESHEET USE COUNT: 2
> 
> > >
> > > > +	return timeSheet;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +int PerFrameControls::queueRequest(Request *request)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	queueCount_++;
> > > > +	if (queueCount_ > captureLimit_)
> > > > +		return 0;
> > > > +
> > > > +	auto ts = timeSheet_.lock();
> > > > +	if (ts)
> > > > +		ts->prepareForQueue(request, queueCount_ - 1);
> > > > +
> > > > +	return camera_->queueRequest(request);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +void PerFrameControls::requestComplete(Request *request)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	auto ts = timeSheet_.lock();
> > > > +	if (ts)
> > > > +		ts->handleCompleteRequest(request);
> > > > +
> > > > +	captureCount_++;
> > > > +	if (captureCount_ >= captureLimit_) {
> > > > +		loop_->exit(0);
> > > > +		return;
> > > > +	}
> > > > +
> > > > +	request->reuse(Request::ReuseBuffers);
> > > > +	if (queueRequest(request))
> > > > +		loop_->exit(-EINVAL);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +void PerFrameControls::runCaptureSession()
> > > > +{
> > > > +	Stream *stream = config_->at(0).stream();
> > > > +	const std::vector<std::unique_ptr<FrameBuffer>> &buffers = allocator_->buffers(stream);
> > > > +
> > > > +	/* Queue the recommended number of reqeuests. */
> > >
> > > s/reqeuests/requests/
> > >
> > > > +	for (const std::unique_ptr<FrameBuffer> &buffer : buffers) {
> > > > +		std::unique_ptr<Request> request = camera_->createRequest();
> > > > +		request->addBuffer(stream, buffer.get());
> > > > +		queueRequest(request.get());
> > > > +		requests_.push_back(std::move(request));
> > > > +	}
> > > > +
> > > > +	/* Run capture session. */
> > > > +	loop_ = new EventLoop();
> > > > +	loop_->exec();
> > > > +	stop();
> > > > +	delete loop_;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +void PerFrameControls::testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame()
> > > > +{
> > > > +	ControlList startValues;
> > > > +	startValues.set(controls::ExposureTime, 5000);
> > > > +	startValues.set(controls::AnalogueGain, 1.0);
> > > > +
> > > > +	auto timeSheet = startCaptureWithTimeSheet(10, &startValues);
> > > > +	auto &ts = *timeSheet;
> > >
> > > Why a temporary reference ?
> >
> > The shared_ptr keeps the timesheet alive. The reference is just
> 
> It's a reference, so it doesn't increment the usage count
> 
> > syntactic shugar to be able to write ts[x].  I could replace these with
> > (*ts)[x] or ts->get(x) if you like that better.
> >
> 
> Ah ok, seeing a reference just to be able to "ts[]" brings more
> questions on why the reference is there than clarity imho. Up to you.

Thats now solved by my proposal above :-)

> 
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > +	/* wait a few frames to settle */
> > > > +	ts[7].controls().set(controls::ExposureTime, 10000);
> > > > +	ts[7].controls().set(controls::AnalogueGain, 4.0);
> > > > +
> > > > +	runCaptureSession();
> > > > +
> > > > +	/* Uncomment this to debug the test */
> > > > +	/* ts.printAllInfos(); */
> > >
> > > Please drop
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > +	ASSERT_TRUE(ts[5].metadata().contains(controls::ExposureTime.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> > > > +	ASSERT_TRUE(ts[5].metadata().contains(controls::AnalogueGain.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> > >
> > > Break long lines when possible
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[3].metadata().get(controls::ExposureTime).value(), 5000, 20);
> > > > +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[3].metadata().get(controls::AnalogueGain).value(), 1.0, 0.05);
> > > > +
> > > > +	//find the frame with the changes
> > >
> > > No C++ comments please
> > >
> > > > +	int exposureChangeIndex = 0;
> > > > +	for (unsigned i = 3; i < ts.size(); i++) {
> > > > +		if (ts[i].metadata().get(controls::ExposureTime).value() > 7500) {
> > > > +			exposureChangeIndex = i;
> > > > +			break;
> > > > +		}
> > > > +	}
> > > > +
> > > > +	int gainChangeIndex = 0;
> > > > +	for (unsigned i = 3; i < ts.size(); i++) {
> > > > +		if (ts[i].metadata().get(controls::AnalogueGain).value() > 2.0) {
> > > > +			gainChangeIndex = i;
> > > > +			break;
> > > > +		}
> > > > +	}
> > > > +
> > > > +	EXPECT_NE(exposureChangeIndex, 0) << "Exposure change not found in metadata";
> > > > +	EXPECT_NE(gainChangeIndex, 0) << "Gain change not found in metadata";
> > > > +	EXPECT_EQ(exposureChangeIndex, gainChangeIndex)
> > > > +		<< "Metadata contained gain and exposure changes on different frames";
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (doImageTests) {
> > >
> > > Why do you think it should be optional ? If it has to be made optional
> > > it should be done in a way that doesn't depend on a compile time
> > > constant defined in the source code. Either make a series of separate
> > > image tests or add an option to lc-compliance.
> >
> > The tests still have a value without the content based tests, so yes
> > this should propably be a option to lc-compliance. We could default that
> > to false to express the 'optional' aspect.
> >
> > >
> > > > +		int brightnessChangeIndex = 0;
> > > > +		for (unsigned i = 3; i < ts.size(); i++) {
> > >
> > > The usage of '3' seems to be there to ignore the first three frames,
> > > right ? If so, what about defining a constant and add a comment ?
> > >
> > > > +			if (ts[i].getBrightnessChange() > 1.3) {
> > > > +				EXPECT_EQ(brightnessChangeIndex, 0)
> > > > +					<< "Detected multiple frames with brightness increase (Wrong control delays?)";
> > > > +
> > > > +				if (!brightnessChangeIndex)
> > > > +					brightnessChangeIndex = i;
> > > > +			}
> > > > +		}
> > > > +
> > > > +		EXPECT_EQ(exposureChangeIndex, brightnessChangeIndex)
> > > > +			<< "Exposure change and mesaured brightness change were not on same frame. "
> > > > +			<< "(Wrong control delay?, Start frame event too late?)";
> > > > +		EXPECT_EQ(exposureChangeIndex, gainChangeIndex)
> > > > +			<< "Gain change and mesaured brightness change were not on same frame. "
> > > > +			<< "(Wrong control delay?, Start frame event too late?)";
> > > > +	}
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +void PerFrameControls::testFramePreciseExposureChange()
> > > > +{
> > > > +	auto timeSheet = startCaptureWithTimeSheet(10);
> > > > +	auto &ts = *timeSheet;
> > > > +
> > > > +	ts[3].controls().set(controls::ExposureTime, 5000);
> > > > +	/* wait a few frames to settle */
> > > > +	ts[6].controls().set(controls::ExposureTime, 20000);
> > > > +
> > > > +	runCaptureSession();
> > > > +
> > > > +	/* Uncomment this to debug the test */
> > > > +	/* ts.printAllInfos(); */
> > >
> > > ditto
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > +	ASSERT_TRUE(ts[5].metadata().contains(controls::ExposureTime.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> > >
> > > break long lines
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[5].metadata().get(controls::ExposureTime).value(), 5000, 20);
> > > > +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[6].metadata().get(controls::ExposureTime).value(), 20000, 20);
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (doImageTests) {
> > > > +		/* No increase just before setting exposure */
> > > > +		EXPECT_NEAR(ts[5].getBrightnessChange(), 1.0, 0.05)
> > > > +			<< "Brightness changed too much before the expected time of change (control delay too high?).";
> > > > +		/*
> > > > +		* Todo: The change is brightness was a bit low
> > >
> > > Wrong alignment
> > >
> > > We don't Doxygen lc-compliance but try to use \todo for consistency
> > > with the rest of the code base
> > >
> > > > +		* (Exposure time increase by 4x resulted in a brightness increase of < 2).
> > > > +		* This should be investigated.
> > >
> > > Might be platform specific issue ?
> > >
> > > > +		*/
> > > > +		EXPECT_GT(ts[6].getBrightnessChange(), 1.3)
> > > > +			<< "Brightness in frame " << 6 << " did not increase as expected (reference: "
> > > > +			<< ts[3].getSpotBrightness() << " current: " << ts[6].getSpotBrightness() << " )" << std::endl;
> > > > +
> > > > +		/* No increase just after setting exposure */
> > > > +		EXPECT_NEAR(ts[7].getBrightnessChange(), 1.0, 0.05)
> > > > +			<< "Brightness changed too much after the expected time of change (control delay too low?).";
> > > > +
> > > > +		/* No increase just after setting exposure */
> > > > +		EXPECT_NEAR(ts[8].getBrightnessChange(), 1.0, 0.05)
> > > > +			<< "Brightness changed too much 2 frames after the expected time of change (control delay too low?).";
> > > > +	}
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +void PerFrameControls::testFramePreciseGainChange()
> > > > +{
> > > > +	auto timeSheet = startCaptureWithTimeSheet(10);
> > > > +	auto &ts = *timeSheet;
> > > > +
> > > > +	ts[3].controls().set(controls::AnalogueGain, 1.0);
> > > > +	/* wait a few frames to settle */
> > > > +	ts[6].controls().set(controls::AnalogueGain, 4.0);
> > > > +
> > > > +	runCaptureSession();
> > > > +
> > > > +	/* Uncomment this, to debug the test */
> > > > +	/* ts.printAllInfos(); */
> > > > +
> > > > +	ASSERT_TRUE(ts[5].metadata().contains(controls::AnalogueGain.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> > >
> > > Break this long line
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[5].metadata().get(controls::AnalogueGain).value(), 1.0, 0.1);
> > > > +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[6].metadata().get(controls::AnalogueGain).value(), 4.0, 0.1);
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (doImageTests) {
> > > > +		/* No increase just before setting gain */
> > > > +		EXPECT_NEAR(ts[5].getBrightnessChange(), 1.0, 0.05)
> > > > +			<< "Brightness changed too much before the expected time of change (control delay too high?).";
> > > > +		/*
> > > > +		* Todo: I see a brightness change of roughly half the expected one.
> > >
> > > Wrong alignment here too, also \todo
> > >
> > > > +		* This is not yet understood and needs investigation
> > >
> > > Defintely some platform specific thing to investigate then ?
> > >
> > > > +		*/
> > > > +		EXPECT_GT(ts[6].getBrightnessChange(), 1.7)
> > > > +			<< "Brightness in frame " << 6 << " did not increase as expected (reference: "
> > > > +			<< ts[5].getSpotBrightness() << " current: " << ts[6].getSpotBrightness() << " )" << std::endl;
> > > > +
> > > > +		/* No increase just after setting gain */
> > > > +		EXPECT_NEAR(ts[7].getBrightnessChange(), 1.0, 0.05)
> > > > +			<< "Brightness changed too much after the expected time of change (control delay too low?).";
> > > > +
> > > > +		/* No increase just after setting gain */
> > > > +		EXPECT_NEAR(ts[8].getBrightnessChange(), 1.0, 0.05)
> > > > +			<< "Brightness changed too much after the expected time of change (control delay too low?).";
> > > > +	}
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +void PerFrameControls::testExposureGainFromFirstRequestGetsApplied()
> > > > +{
> > > > +	auto timeSheet = startCaptureWithTimeSheet(5);
> > > > +	auto &ts = *timeSheet;
> > > > +
> > > > +	ts[0].controls().set(controls::ExposureTime, 10000);
> > > > +	ts[0].controls().set(controls::AnalogueGain, 4.0);
> > > > +
> > > > +	runCaptureSession();
> > > > +
> > > > +	ASSERT_TRUE(ts[4].metadata().contains(controls::ExposureTime.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> > > > +	ASSERT_TRUE(ts[4].metadata().contains(controls::AnalogueGain.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> > >
> > > You can easily break these lines
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > +	/* We expect it to be applied after 3 frames, the latest*/
> > >
> > > What if a sensor takes a longer time to apply exposure and gain ?
> >
> > Then we should adjust the test :-)
> >
> > >
> > > > +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[4].metadata().get(controls::ExposureTime).value(), 10000, 20);
> > > > +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[4].metadata().get(controls::AnalogueGain).value(), 4.0, 0.1);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +void PerFrameControls::testExposureGainFromFirstAndSecondRequestGetsApplied()
> > > > +{
> > > > +	auto timeSheet = startCaptureWithTimeSheet(5);
> > > > +	auto &ts = *timeSheet;
> > > > +
> > > > +	ts[0].controls().set(controls::ExposureTime, 8000);
> > > > +	ts[0].controls().set(controls::AnalogueGain, 2.0);
> > > > +	ts[1].controls().set(controls::ExposureTime, 10000);
> > > > +	ts[1].controls().set(controls::AnalogueGain, 4.0);
> > >
> > > As a general question, how do we guarantee the values you use to set
> > > exposure and gains are valid for all possible sensors ?
> > >
> > > Shouldn't you inspect inspect the ControlInfo limit from
> > > Camera::controls() and clamp the values in the min/max range ?
> >
> > I thought about that too. I started with values that most if not all
> > sensor we care atm should support. I'm weary if it is worth the effort
> > and that it would make the tests way less readable.  But you are right,
> > that is an unsolved issue.
> 
> Recording it with a \todo comment is fine for now
> 
> >
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > +	runCaptureSession();
> > > > +
> > > > +	ASSERT_TRUE(ts[4].metadata().contains(controls::ExposureTime.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> > > > +	ASSERT_TRUE(ts[4].metadata().contains(controls::AnalogueGain.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> > >
> > > Ditto
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > +	/* We expect it to be applied after 3 frames, the latest */
> > > > +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[4].metadata().get(controls::ExposureTime).value(), 10000, 20);
> > > > +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[4].metadata().get(controls::AnalogueGain).value(), 4.0, 0.1);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +void PerFrameControls::testExposureGainIsAppliedOnFirstFrame()
> > > > +{
> > > > +	ControlList startValues;
> > > > +	startValues.set(controls::ExposureTime, 5000);
> > > > +	startValues.set(controls::AnalogueGain, 1.0);
> > > > +
> > > > +	auto ts1 = startCaptureWithTimeSheet(3, &startValues);
> > > > +
> > > > +	runCaptureSession();
> > > > +
> > > > +	ASSERT_TRUE((*ts1)[0].metadata().contains(controls::ExposureTime.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> > > > +	ASSERT_TRUE((*ts1)[0].metadata().contains(controls::AnalogueGain.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> > > > +
> > > > +	EXPECT_NEAR((*ts1)[0].metadata().get(controls::ExposureTime).value(), 5000, 20);
> > > > +	EXPECT_NEAR((*ts1)[0].metadata().get(controls::AnalogueGain).value(), 1.0, 0.02);
> > > > +
> > > > +	/* Second capture with different values to ensure we don't hit default/old values */
> > > > +	startValues.set(controls::ExposureTime, 15000);
> > > > +	startValues.set(controls::AnalogueGain, 4.0);
> > > > +
> > > > +	auto ts2 = startCaptureWithTimeSheet(3, &startValues);
> > > > +
> > > > +	runCaptureSession();
> > > > +
> > > > +	EXPECT_NEAR((*ts2)[0].metadata().get(controls::ExposureTime).value(), 15000, 20);
> > > > +	EXPECT_NEAR((*ts2)[0].metadata().get(controls::AnalogueGain).value(), 4.0, 0.02);
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (doImageTests) {
> > > > +		/* With 3x exposure and 4x gain we could expect a brightness increase of 2x */
> > > > +		double brightnessChange = ts2->get(1).getSpotBrightness() / ts1->get(1).getSpotBrightness();
> > > > +		EXPECT_GT(brightnessChange, 2.0);
> > > > +	}
> > > > +}
> > > > diff --git a/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.h b/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.h
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 00000000..a341c61f
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.h
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
> > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later */
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * Copyright (C) 2024, Ideas on Board Oy
> > > > + *
> > > > + * per_frame_controls.h - Tests for per frame controls
> > > > + */
> > > > +
> > > > +#pragma once
> > > > +
> > > > +#include <memory>
> > > > +
> > > > +#include <libcamera/libcamera.h>
> > > > +
> > > > +#include "../common/event_loop.h"
> > > > +
> > > > +#include "simple_capture.h"
> > > > +#include "time_sheet.h"
> > > > +
> > > > +class PerFrameControls : public SimpleCapture
> > > > +{
> > > > +public:
> > > > +	PerFrameControls(std::shared_ptr<libcamera::Camera> camera);
> > > > +
> > > > +	std::shared_ptr<TimeSheet>
> > > > +	startCaptureWithTimeSheet(unsigned int framesToCapture, const libcamera::ControlList *controls = nullptr);
> > > > +	void runCaptureSession();
> > > > +
> > > > +	void testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame();
> > > > +	void testFramePreciseExposureChange();
> > > > +	void testFramePreciseGainChange();
> > > > +	void testExposureGainIsAppliedOnFirstFrame();
> > > > +	void testExposureGainFromFirstRequestGetsApplied();
> > > > +	void testExposureGainFromFirstAndSecondRequestGetsApplied();
> > > > +
> > > > +	int queueRequest(libcamera::Request *request);
> > > > +	void requestComplete(libcamera::Request *request) override;
> > > > +
> > > > +	unsigned int queueCount_;
> > > > +	unsigned int captureCount_;
> > > > +	unsigned int captureLimit_;
> > > > +
> > > > +	std::weak_ptr<TimeSheet> timeSheet_;
> > > > +};
> > > > --
> > > > 2.40.1
> > > >
> >
> > Thanks for all the input :-)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Stefan

Hi Stefan

On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 12:34:49PM +0100, Stefan Klug wrote:
> Hi Jacopo,
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 09:47:53AM +0100, Jacopo Mondi wrote:
> > Hi Stefan
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 04:53:03PM +0100, Stefan Klug wrote:
> > > Hi Jacopo,
> > >
> > > thanks for the review.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 03:42:39PM +0100, Jacopo Mondi wrote:
> > > > Hi Stefan
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 01:12:14PM +0100, Stefan Klug wrote:
> > > > > These tests check if controls (only exposure time and analogue gain at
> > > > > the moment) get applied on the frame they were requested for.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is tested by looking at the metadata and the mean brightness
> > > > > of the image center.
> > > > >
> > > > > At the moment these tests fail. Fixes for the pipelines will be delivered
> > > > > in later patches.
> > > >
> > > > Nice!
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > To run only the teste, one can run:
> > > >
> > > > s/teste/test
> > > >
> > > > > lc-compliance -c <cam> -f "SingleStream.*"
> > > > >
> > > > > Note that the current implementation is a bit picky on what the camera
> > > > > actually sees. If it is too dark (or too bright), the tests will fail.
> > > > > Looking at a white wall in a normally lit office usually works.
> > > >
> > > > Mmm, is this ok for a compliance suite ? Is this the reason the image
> > > > tests are 'optional' ?
> > >
> > > Yes, in the beginning I wasn't sure how far we should go in first place.
> > > You basically have two options here:
> > > - Dynamically finding a "base" exposure time that works (e.g. bright
> > >   enough that you see a difference when the values increase and dim
> > >   enough to not saturate any pixel). This might work but has a large
> > >   dependency on the efficiency of the sensor and might still be flaky.
> > > - Building and distributing a physical testrig with defined brightness.
> > >   This is cool, but a larger task.
> > >
> > > So I started small added this 'optional' term so that we could collect
> > > some practical experience on how stable these tests are on different
> > > devices.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Klug <stefan.klug@ideasonboard.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  src/apps/lc-compliance/capture_test.cpp       |  46 +++
> > > > >  src/apps/lc-compliance/meson.build            |   1 +
> > > > >  src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.cpp | 316 ++++++++++++++++++
> > > > >  src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.h   |  43 +++
> > > > >  4 files changed, 406 insertions(+)
> > > > >  create mode 100644 src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.cpp
> > > > >  create mode 100644 src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.h
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/src/apps/lc-compliance/capture_test.cpp b/src/apps/lc-compliance/capture_test.cpp
> > > > > index 1dcfcf92..b19e8936 100644
> > > > > --- a/src/apps/lc-compliance/capture_test.cpp
> > > > > +++ b/src/apps/lc-compliance/capture_test.cpp
> > > > > @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
> > > > >  #include <gtest/gtest.h>
> > > > >
> > > > >  #include "environment.h"
> > > > > +#include "per_frame_controls.h"
> > > > >  #include "simple_capture.h"
> > > > >
> > > > >  using namespace libcamera;
> > > > > @@ -133,3 +134,48 @@ INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P(CaptureTests,
> > > > >  			 testing::Combine(testing::ValuesIn(ROLES),
> > > > >  					  testing::ValuesIn(NUMREQUESTS)),
> > > > >  			 SingleStream::nameParameters);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +/*
> > > > > + * Test Per frame controls
> > > > > + */
> > > > > +TEST_F(SingleStream, testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	PerFrameControls capture(camera_);
> > > > > +	capture.configure(StreamRole::VideoRecording);
> > > > > +	capture.testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame();
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +TEST_F(SingleStream, testFramePreciseExposureChange)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	PerFrameControls capture(camera_);
> > > > > +	capture.configure(StreamRole::VideoRecording);
> > > > > +	capture.testFramePreciseExposureChange();
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +TEST_F(SingleStream, testFramePreciseGainChange)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	PerFrameControls capture(camera_);
> > > > > +	capture.configure(StreamRole::VideoRecording);
> > > > > +	capture.testFramePreciseGainChange();
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +TEST_F(SingleStream, testExposureGainIsAppliedOnFirstFrame)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	PerFrameControls capture(camera_);
> > > > > +	capture.configure(StreamRole::VideoRecording);
> > > > > +	capture.testExposureGainIsAppliedOnFirstFrame();
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +TEST_F(SingleStream, testExposureGainFromFirstRequestGetsApplied)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	PerFrameControls capture(camera_);
> > > > > +	capture.configure(StreamRole::VideoRecording);
> > > > > +	capture.testExposureGainFromFirstRequestGetsApplied();
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +TEST_F(SingleStream, testExposureGainFromFirstAndSecondRequestGetsApplied)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	PerFrameControls capture(camera_);
> > > > > +	capture.configure(StreamRole::VideoRecording);
> > > > > +	capture.testExposureGainFromFirstAndSecondRequestGetsApplied();
> > > > > +}
> > > >
> > > > This now shows up as
> > > >
> > > > SingleStream.
> > > >   testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame
> > > >   testFramePreciseExposureChange
> > > >   testFramePreciseGainChange
> > > >   testExposureGainIsAppliedOnFirstFrame
> > > >   testExposureGainFromFirstRequestGetsApplied
> > > >   testExposureGainFromFirstAndSecondRequestGetsApplied
> > > >
> > > > And we already have
> > > >
> > > > CaptureTests/SingleStream.
> > > >   Capture/Raw_1  # GetParam() = (Raw, 1)
> > > >   Capture/Raw_2  # GetParam() = (Raw, 2)
> > > >   Capture/Raw_3  # GetParam() = (Raw, 3)
> > > >   Capture/Raw_5  # GetParam() = (Raw, 5)
> > > >   Capture/Raw_8  # GetParam() = (Raw, 8)
> > > >   Capture/Raw_13  # GetParam() = (Raw, 13)
> > > >   Capture/Raw_21  # GetParam() = (Raw, 21)
> > > >   Capture/Raw_34  # GetParam() = (Raw, 34)
> > > >   Capture/Raw_55  # GetParam() = (Raw, 55)
> > > >   Capture/Raw_89  # GetParam() = (Raw, 89)
> > > >
> > > > I would have not instantiated these tests in capture_test.cpp but
> > > > directly in per_frame_control.cpp and I would have named them
> > > > "PerFrameControl". To do so you need to define a test class that
> > > > derives from testing::Test in per_frame_control.cpp
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * Test Per frame controls
> > > > + */
> > > > +
> > > > +class PerFrameControlTest : public testing::Test
> > > > +{
> > > > +protected:
> > > > +       void SetUp() override;
> > > > +       void TearDown() override;
> > > > +
> > > > +       std::shared_ptr<Camera> camera_;
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +void PerFrameControlTest::SetUp()
> > > > +{
> > > > +       Environment *env = Environment::get();
> > > > +
> > > > +       camera_ = env->cm()->get(env->cameraId());
> > > > +
> > > > +       ASSERT_EQ(camera_->acquire(), 0);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +void PerFrameControlTest::TearDown()
> > > > +{
> > > > +       if (!camera_)
> > > > +               return;
> > > > +
> > > > +       camera_->release();
> > > > +       camera_.reset();
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +TEST_F(PerFrameControlTest, testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame)
> > > > .....
> > > >
> > > > With this you get a dedicated test suite
> > > >
> > > > PerFrameControlTest.
> > > >   testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame
> > > >   testFramePreciseExposureChange
> > > >   testFramePreciseGainChange
> > > >   testExposureGainIsAppliedOnFirstFrame
> > > >   testExposureGainFromFirstRequestGetsApplied
> > > >   testExposureGainFromFirstAndSecondRequestGetsApplied
> > > >
> > > > Also, you now can drop the
> > > >
> > > > 	void testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame();
> > > > 	void testFramePreciseExposureChange();
> > > > 	void testFramePreciseGainChange();
> > > > 	void testExposureGainIsAppliedOnFirstFrame();
> > > > 	void testExposureGainFromFirstRequestGetsApplied();
> > > > 	void testExposureGainFromFirstAndSecondRequestGetsApplied();
> > > >
> > > > functions from the PerFrameControl class, and implement the tests in
> > > > the test definition instead of having them as wrappers that call the
> > > > PerFrameControl class' functions
> > > >
> > > > TL;DR do this:
> > > >
> > > > TEST_F(PerFrameControlTest, testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame)
> > > > {
> > > > 	PerFrameControls capture(camera_);
> > > > 	capture.configure(StreamRole::VideoRecording);
> > > >
> > > > 	ControlList startValues;
> > > > 	startValues.set(controls::ExposureTime, 5000);
> > > > 	startValues.set(controls::AnalogueGain, 1.0);
> > > >
> > > > 	auto timeSheet = capture.startCaptureWithTimeSheet(10, &startValues);
> > > > 	auto &ts = *timeSheet;
> > > >
> > > > 	/* wait a few frames to settle */
> > > > 	ts[7].controls().set(controls::ExposureTime, 10000);
> > > > 	ts[7].controls().set(controls::AnalogueGain, 4.0);
> > > >
> > > >         ...
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > in place of:
> > > >
> > > > TEST_F(PerFrameControlTest, testFramePreciseExposureChange)
> > > > {
> > > > 	PerFrameControls capture(camera_);
> > > > 	capture.configure(StreamRole::VideoRecording);
> > > > 	capture.testFramePreciseExposureChange();
> > > > }
> > > >
> > >
> > > Great. Thanks for that. I didn't want to spend too much time inside
> > > google test before getting feedback on the overall direction. Your
> > > proposal is perfect. I'll do that.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/src/apps/lc-compliance/meson.build b/src/apps/lc-compliance/meson.build
> > > > > index eb7b2d71..2a6f52af 100644
> > > > > --- a/src/apps/lc-compliance/meson.build
> > > > > +++ b/src/apps/lc-compliance/meson.build
> > > > > @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ lc_compliance_sources = files([
> > > > >      'capture_test.cpp',
> > > > >      'environment.cpp',
> > > > >      'main.cpp',
> > > > > +    'per_frame_controls.cpp',
> > > > >      'simple_capture.cpp',
> > > > >      'time_sheet.cpp',
> > > > >  ])
> > > > > diff --git a/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.cpp b/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.cpp
> > > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > > index 00000000..eb7164e0
> > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > +++ b/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.cpp
> > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,316 @@
> > > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later */
> > > > > +/*
> > > > > + * Copyright (C) 2024, Ideas on Board Oy
> > > > > + *
> > > > > + * per_frame_controls.cpp - Tests for per frame controls
> > > > > + */
> > > > > +#include "per_frame_controls.h"
> > > > > +
> > > > > +#include <gtest/gtest.h>
> > > > > +
> > > > > +#include "time_sheet.h"
> > > > > +
> > > > > +using namespace libcamera;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static const bool doImageTests = true;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +PerFrameControls::PerFrameControls(std::shared_ptr<Camera> camera)
> > > > > +	: SimpleCapture(camera)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +std::shared_ptr<TimeSheet>
> > > > > +PerFrameControls::startCaptureWithTimeSheet(unsigned int framesToCapture, const ControlList *controls)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	ControlList ctrls(camera_->controls().idmap());
> > > >
> > > > Empty line please
> > > >
> > > > > +	/* Ensure defined default values */
> > > > > +	ctrls.set(controls::AeEnable, false);
> > > > > +	ctrls.set(controls::AeExposureMode, controls::ExposureCustom);
> > > > > +	ctrls.set(controls::ExposureTime, 10000);
> > > > > +	ctrls.set(controls::AnalogueGain, 1.0);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	if (controls)
> > > > > +		ctrls.merge(*controls, ControlList::MergePolicy::OverwriteExisting);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	start(&ctrls);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	queueCount_ = 0;
> > > > > +	captureCount_ = 0;
> > > > > +	captureLimit_ = framesToCapture;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	auto timeSheet = std::make_shared<TimeSheet>(captureLimit_, camera_->controls().idmap());
> > > > > +	timeSheet_ = timeSheet;
> > > >
> > > > I'm sorry but I don't see why you would use a shared_ptr<> and a weak
> > > > reference when the timeSheet_ ownership is not shared with any other
> > > > component outside of this class
> > >
> > > This class is still based on the Capture class. So you are free to write
> > > tests and capture without a timesheet. In such tests the weak ptr will
> > > automatically be empty and the queueRequest and requestComplete
> > > functions still work properly. The lifetime of the timesheet is bound to
> > > the scope of the test function. (You could even use the
> > > startCaptureWithTimeSheet() and ignore the result, in wich case the
> > > timesheet would get destroyed immediately).
> > >
> >
> > Let me re-cap (I'm looking at v3)
> >
> > The PerFrameControlsCapture class:
> >
> > - has a member std::weak_ptr<TimeSheet> timeSheet_
> > - has a
> >         std::shared_ptr<TimeSheet>
> > 	startCaptureWithTimeSheet(unsigned int framesToCapture,
> > 				  const libcamera::ControlList *controls = nullptr);
> >
> >   function that
> >
> >   * creates a TimeSheet as shared_ptr<> and returns it to the caller
> >   * Initialize the weak_ref<> class member with the shared_ptr<>
> >
> > 	auto timeSheet = std::make_shared<TimeSheet>(captureLimit_,
> > 						     camera_->controls().idmap());
> > 	timeSheet_ = timeSheet;
> > 	return timeSheet;
> >
> > so, if I read it right, you create a shared_ptr<> (refcount = 1),
> > initialize a weak_ptr<> (no reference count increment) return a
> > shared_ptr<> by copy (refcount = 2) and the end of the function scope
> > the local shared_ptr<> is destroyed (refcount = 1). Now the pointer
> > ownership is on the caller only, so you basically trasferred the
> > ownership outside of the class and refers to that within the class
> > with a weak_ptr<>.
>
> That's was exactly the plan. The only reason for the weak_ptr to exist
> at all, is to be able to access a potential timesheet inside requestComplete
> and queueRequest.
>
> >
> > In facts
> >
> > --- a/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls_test.cpp
> > +++ b/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls_test.cpp
> > @@ -157,6 +157,8 @@ TEST_F(PerFrameControlTests, testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame)
> >         startValues.set(controls::AnalogueGain, 1.0);
> >
> >         auto timeSheet = capture.startCaptureWithTimeSheet(10, &startValues);
> > +       std::cerr << " TIMESHEET USE COUNT: " << timeSheet.use_count();
> > +
> >         auto &ts = *timeSheet;
> >
> > Gives me
> >          TIMESHEET USE COUNT: 1
> >
> > if ever the caller does
> >
> >         {
> >                 ts =  capture.startCaptureWithTimeSheet(10, &startValues);
> >         }
> >
> > The instance of the TimeSheet class the timeSheet_ member refers to gets
> > destroyed. It's 'safe' as it's a weak_ptr<> but I don't think that's what you
> > want.
>
> No, that was intended. As the lifetime of the timesheet shall be bound
> to the test function and not to the lifetime of the
> PerFrameControlsCapture instance.
>

Ah ok, it's weird than that the timesheet is created by the
PerFrameControlsCapture class then.

> But I think I understand what bothers you. And thinking about that I
> came to a solution that might be easier to follow. What about the
> following proposal (not compiled though):
>
> - startCaptureWithTimsheet becomes a simple startCapture
> - timesheet in instanciated in the test and passed as pointer to
>   runCaptureSession.
> - that also removes the nasty "auto &ts = *timesheet" inside the tests-
>

I like it ! Let's make it clear what owns what to avoid passing
ownerships around!

>
> diff --git a/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls_test.cpp b/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls_test.cpp
> index 589ef517..d98ab3a7 100644
> --- a/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls_test.cpp
> +++ b/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls_test.cpp
> @@ -48,11 +48,10 @@ class PerFrameControlsCapture : public SimpleCapture
>  public:
>         PerFrameControlsCapture(std::shared_ptr<libcamera::Camera> camera);
>
> -       std::shared_ptr<TimeSheet>
> -       startCaptureWithTimeSheet(unsigned int framesToCapture,
> +       void startCapture(unsigned int framesToCapture,
>                                   const libcamera::ControlList *controls = nullptr);
>
> -       void runCaptureSession();
> +       void runCaptureSession(TimeSheet* ts);
>         int queueRequest(libcamera::Request *request);
>         void requestComplete(libcamera::Request *request) override;
>
> @@ -60,7 +59,7 @@ public:
>         unsigned int captureCount_;
>         unsigned int captureLimit_;
>
> -       std::weak_ptr<TimeSheet> timeSheet_;
> +       TimeSheet* sessionTimeSheet_;
>  };
>
>  static const bool doImageTests = true;
> @@ -70,8 +69,7 @@ PerFrameControlsCapture::PerFrameControlsCapture(std::shared_ptr<Camera> camera)
>  {
>  }
>
> -std::shared_ptr<TimeSheet>
> -PerFrameControlsCapture::startCaptureWithTimeSheet(unsigned int framesToCapture,
> +void PerFrameControlsCapture::startCapture(unsigned int framesToCapture,
>                                                    const ControlList *controls)
>  {
>         ControlList ctrls(camera_->controls().idmap());
> @@ -90,10 +88,6 @@ PerFrameControlsCapture::startCaptureWithTimeSheet(unsigned int framesToCapture,
>         queueCount_ = 0;
>         captureCount_ = 0;
>         captureLimit_ = framesToCapture;
> -
> -       auto timeSheet = std::make_shared<TimeSheet>(captureLimit_, camera_);
> -       timeSheet_ = timeSheet;
> -       return timeSheet;
>  }
>
>  int PerFrameControlsCapture::queueRequest(Request *request)
> @@ -102,18 +96,16 @@ int PerFrameControlsCapture::queueRequest(Request *request)
>         if (queueCount_ > captureLimit_)
>                 return 0;
>
> -       auto ts = timeSheet_.lock();
> -       if (ts)
> -               ts->prepareForQueue(request, queueCount_ - 1);
> +       if (sessionTimeSheet_)
> +               sessionTimeSheet_->prepareForQueue(request, queueCount_ - 1);
>
>         return camera_->queueRequest(request);
>  }
>
>  void PerFrameControlsCapture::requestComplete(Request *request)
>  {
> -       auto ts = timeSheet_.lock();
> -       if (ts)
> -               ts->handleCompleteRequest(request);
> +       if (sessionTimeSheet_)
> +               sessionTimeSheet_->handleCompleteRequest(request);
>
>         captureCount_++;
>         if (captureCount_ >= captureLimit_) {
> @@ -126,11 +118,13 @@ void PerFrameControlsCapture::requestComplete(Request *request)
>                 loop_->exit(-EINVAL);
>  }
>
> -void PerFrameControlsCapture::runCaptureSession()
> +void PerFrameControlsCapture::runCaptureSession(TimeSheet* ts)
>  {
>         Stream *stream = config_->at(0).stream();
>         const std::vector<std::unique_ptr<FrameBuffer>> &buffers = allocator_->buffers(stream);
>
> +       sessionTimeSheet_ = ts;
> +
>         /* Queue the recommended number of requests. */
>         for (const std::unique_ptr<FrameBuffer> &buffer : buffers) {
>                 std::unique_ptr<Request> request = camera_->createRequest();
> @@ -144,6 +138,7 @@ void PerFrameControlsCapture::runCaptureSession()
>         loop_->exec();
>         stop();
>         delete loop_;
> +       sessionTimeSheet_ = nullptr;
>  }
>
>  TEST_F(PerFrameControlTests, testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame)
> @@ -155,14 +150,14 @@ TEST_F(PerFrameControlTests, testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame)
>         startValues.set(controls::ExposureTime, 5000);
>         startValues.set(controls::AnalogueGain, 1.0);
>
> -       auto timeSheet = capture.startCaptureWithTimeSheet(10, &startValues);
> -       auto &ts = *timeSheet;
> +       capture.startCaptureWithTimeSheet(10, &startValues);
>
> +       TimeSheet ts(10);
>         /* wait a few frames to settle */
>         ts[7].controls().set(controls::ExposureTime, 10000);
>         ts[7].controls().set(controls::AnalogueGain, 4.0);
>
> -       capture.runCaptureSession();
> +       capture.runCaptureSession(&ts);
>
>         ASSERT_TRUE(ts[5].metadata().contains(controls::ExposureTime.id()))
>                 << "Required metadata entry is missing";
>
>
> >
> > If you want to share ownership of the timesheet between the
> > PerFrameControlsCapture class and the caller, so that it gets
> > destroyed when the the last one of the two owners gets destroyed,
> > just use a shared_ptr<>
> >
> > --- a/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls_test.cpp
> > +++ b/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls_test.cpp
> > @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ public:
> >         unsigned int captureCount_;
> >         unsigned int captureLimit_;
> >
> > -       std::weak_ptr<TimeSheet> timeSheet_;
> > +       std::shared_ptr<TimeSheet> timeSheet_;
> >  };
> >
> >  static const bool doImageTests = true;
> > @@ -91,10 +91,9 @@ PerFrameControlsCapture::startCaptureWithTimeSheet(unsigned int framesToCapture,
> >         captureCount_ = 0;
> >         captureLimit_ = framesToCapture;
> >
> > -       auto timeSheet = std::make_shared<TimeSheet>(captureLimit_,
> > +       timeSheet_ = std::make_shared<TimeSheet>(captureLimit_,
> >                                                      camera_->controls().idmap());
> > -       timeSheet_ = timeSheet;
> > -       return timeSheet;
> > +       return timeSheet_;
> >  }
> >
> >  int PerFrameControlsCapture::queueRequest(Request *request)
> > @@ -103,18 +102,16 @@ int PerFrameControlsCapture::queueRequest(Request *request)
> >         if (queueCount_ > captureLimit_)
> >                 return 0;
> >
> > -       auto ts = timeSheet_.lock();
> > -       if (ts)
> > -               ts->prepareForQueue(request, queueCount_ - 1);
> > +       if (timeSheet_)
> > +               timeSheet_->prepareForQueue(request, queueCount_ - 1);
> >
> >         return camera_->queueRequest(request);
> >  }
> >
> >  void PerFrameControlsCapture::requestComplete(Request *request)
> >  {
> > -       auto ts = timeSheet_.lock();
> > -       if (ts)
> > -               ts->handleCompleteRequest(request);
> > +       if (timeSheet_)
> > +               timeSheet_->handleCompleteRequest(request);
> >
> >         captureCount_++;
> >         if (captureCount_ >= captureLimit_) {
> >
> > So that now
> >
> > 	auto timeSheet = capture.startCaptureWithTimeSheet(10, &startValues);
> > 	std::cerr << " TIMESHEET USE COUNT: " << timeSheet.use_count();
> >
> > Reads as
> >          TIMESHEET USE COUNT: 2
> >
> > > >
> > > > > +	return timeSheet;
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +int PerFrameControls::queueRequest(Request *request)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	queueCount_++;
> > > > > +	if (queueCount_ > captureLimit_)
> > > > > +		return 0;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	auto ts = timeSheet_.lock();
> > > > > +	if (ts)
> > > > > +		ts->prepareForQueue(request, queueCount_ - 1);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	return camera_->queueRequest(request);
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +void PerFrameControls::requestComplete(Request *request)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	auto ts = timeSheet_.lock();
> > > > > +	if (ts)
> > > > > +		ts->handleCompleteRequest(request);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	captureCount_++;
> > > > > +	if (captureCount_ >= captureLimit_) {
> > > > > +		loop_->exit(0);
> > > > > +		return;
> > > > > +	}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	request->reuse(Request::ReuseBuffers);
> > > > > +	if (queueRequest(request))
> > > > > +		loop_->exit(-EINVAL);
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +void PerFrameControls::runCaptureSession()
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	Stream *stream = config_->at(0).stream();
> > > > > +	const std::vector<std::unique_ptr<FrameBuffer>> &buffers = allocator_->buffers(stream);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	/* Queue the recommended number of reqeuests. */
> > > >
> > > > s/reqeuests/requests/
> > > >
> > > > > +	for (const std::unique_ptr<FrameBuffer> &buffer : buffers) {
> > > > > +		std::unique_ptr<Request> request = camera_->createRequest();
> > > > > +		request->addBuffer(stream, buffer.get());
> > > > > +		queueRequest(request.get());
> > > > > +		requests_.push_back(std::move(request));
> > > > > +	}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	/* Run capture session. */
> > > > > +	loop_ = new EventLoop();
> > > > > +	loop_->exec();
> > > > > +	stop();
> > > > > +	delete loop_;
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +void PerFrameControls::testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame()
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	ControlList startValues;
> > > > > +	startValues.set(controls::ExposureTime, 5000);
> > > > > +	startValues.set(controls::AnalogueGain, 1.0);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	auto timeSheet = startCaptureWithTimeSheet(10, &startValues);
> > > > > +	auto &ts = *timeSheet;
> > > >
> > > > Why a temporary reference ?
> > >
> > > The shared_ptr keeps the timesheet alive. The reference is just
> >
> > It's a reference, so it doesn't increment the usage count
> >
> > > syntactic shugar to be able to write ts[x].  I could replace these with
> > > (*ts)[x] or ts->get(x) if you like that better.
> > >
> >
> > Ah ok, seeing a reference just to be able to "ts[]" brings more
> > questions on why the reference is there than clarity imho. Up to you.
>
> Thats now solved by my proposal above :-)
>

Even better, thanks for coming up with a nice solution :)

> >
> > > >
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	/* wait a few frames to settle */
> > > > > +	ts[7].controls().set(controls::ExposureTime, 10000);
> > > > > +	ts[7].controls().set(controls::AnalogueGain, 4.0);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	runCaptureSession();
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	/* Uncomment this to debug the test */
> > > > > +	/* ts.printAllInfos(); */
> > > >
> > > > Please drop
> > > >
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	ASSERT_TRUE(ts[5].metadata().contains(controls::ExposureTime.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> > > > > +	ASSERT_TRUE(ts[5].metadata().contains(controls::AnalogueGain.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> > > >
> > > > Break long lines when possible
> > > >
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[3].metadata().get(controls::ExposureTime).value(), 5000, 20);
> > > > > +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[3].metadata().get(controls::AnalogueGain).value(), 1.0, 0.05);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	//find the frame with the changes
> > > >
> > > > No C++ comments please
> > > >
> > > > > +	int exposureChangeIndex = 0;
> > > > > +	for (unsigned i = 3; i < ts.size(); i++) {
> > > > > +		if (ts[i].metadata().get(controls::ExposureTime).value() > 7500) {
> > > > > +			exposureChangeIndex = i;
> > > > > +			break;
> > > > > +		}
> > > > > +	}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	int gainChangeIndex = 0;
> > > > > +	for (unsigned i = 3; i < ts.size(); i++) {
> > > > > +		if (ts[i].metadata().get(controls::AnalogueGain).value() > 2.0) {
> > > > > +			gainChangeIndex = i;
> > > > > +			break;
> > > > > +		}
> > > > > +	}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	EXPECT_NE(exposureChangeIndex, 0) << "Exposure change not found in metadata";
> > > > > +	EXPECT_NE(gainChangeIndex, 0) << "Gain change not found in metadata";
> > > > > +	EXPECT_EQ(exposureChangeIndex, gainChangeIndex)
> > > > > +		<< "Metadata contained gain and exposure changes on different frames";
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	if (doImageTests) {
> > > >
> > > > Why do you think it should be optional ? If it has to be made optional
> > > > it should be done in a way that doesn't depend on a compile time
> > > > constant defined in the source code. Either make a series of separate
> > > > image tests or add an option to lc-compliance.
> > >
> > > The tests still have a value without the content based tests, so yes
> > > this should propably be a option to lc-compliance. We could default that
> > > to false to express the 'optional' aspect.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > +		int brightnessChangeIndex = 0;
> > > > > +		for (unsigned i = 3; i < ts.size(); i++) {
> > > >
> > > > The usage of '3' seems to be there to ignore the first three frames,
> > > > right ? If so, what about defining a constant and add a comment ?
> > > >
> > > > > +			if (ts[i].getBrightnessChange() > 1.3) {
> > > > > +				EXPECT_EQ(brightnessChangeIndex, 0)
> > > > > +					<< "Detected multiple frames with brightness increase (Wrong control delays?)";
> > > > > +
> > > > > +				if (!brightnessChangeIndex)
> > > > > +					brightnessChangeIndex = i;
> > > > > +			}
> > > > > +		}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +		EXPECT_EQ(exposureChangeIndex, brightnessChangeIndex)
> > > > > +			<< "Exposure change and mesaured brightness change were not on same frame. "
> > > > > +			<< "(Wrong control delay?, Start frame event too late?)";
> > > > > +		EXPECT_EQ(exposureChangeIndex, gainChangeIndex)
> > > > > +			<< "Gain change and mesaured brightness change were not on same frame. "
> > > > > +			<< "(Wrong control delay?, Start frame event too late?)";
> > > > > +	}
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +void PerFrameControls::testFramePreciseExposureChange()
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	auto timeSheet = startCaptureWithTimeSheet(10);
> > > > > +	auto &ts = *timeSheet;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	ts[3].controls().set(controls::ExposureTime, 5000);
> > > > > +	/* wait a few frames to settle */
> > > > > +	ts[6].controls().set(controls::ExposureTime, 20000);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	runCaptureSession();
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	/* Uncomment this to debug the test */
> > > > > +	/* ts.printAllInfos(); */
> > > >
> > > > ditto
> > > >
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	ASSERT_TRUE(ts[5].metadata().contains(controls::ExposureTime.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> > > >
> > > > break long lines
> > > >
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[5].metadata().get(controls::ExposureTime).value(), 5000, 20);
> > > > > +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[6].metadata().get(controls::ExposureTime).value(), 20000, 20);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	if (doImageTests) {
> > > > > +		/* No increase just before setting exposure */
> > > > > +		EXPECT_NEAR(ts[5].getBrightnessChange(), 1.0, 0.05)
> > > > > +			<< "Brightness changed too much before the expected time of change (control delay too high?).";
> > > > > +		/*
> > > > > +		* Todo: The change is brightness was a bit low
> > > >
> > > > Wrong alignment
> > > >
> > > > We don't Doxygen lc-compliance but try to use \todo for consistency
> > > > with the rest of the code base
> > > >
> > > > > +		* (Exposure time increase by 4x resulted in a brightness increase of < 2).
> > > > > +		* This should be investigated.
> > > >
> > > > Might be platform specific issue ?
> > > >
> > > > > +		*/
> > > > > +		EXPECT_GT(ts[6].getBrightnessChange(), 1.3)
> > > > > +			<< "Brightness in frame " << 6 << " did not increase as expected (reference: "
> > > > > +			<< ts[3].getSpotBrightness() << " current: " << ts[6].getSpotBrightness() << " )" << std::endl;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +		/* No increase just after setting exposure */
> > > > > +		EXPECT_NEAR(ts[7].getBrightnessChange(), 1.0, 0.05)
> > > > > +			<< "Brightness changed too much after the expected time of change (control delay too low?).";
> > > > > +
> > > > > +		/* No increase just after setting exposure */
> > > > > +		EXPECT_NEAR(ts[8].getBrightnessChange(), 1.0, 0.05)
> > > > > +			<< "Brightness changed too much 2 frames after the expected time of change (control delay too low?).";
> > > > > +	}
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +void PerFrameControls::testFramePreciseGainChange()
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	auto timeSheet = startCaptureWithTimeSheet(10);
> > > > > +	auto &ts = *timeSheet;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	ts[3].controls().set(controls::AnalogueGain, 1.0);
> > > > > +	/* wait a few frames to settle */
> > > > > +	ts[6].controls().set(controls::AnalogueGain, 4.0);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	runCaptureSession();
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	/* Uncomment this, to debug the test */
> > > > > +	/* ts.printAllInfos(); */
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	ASSERT_TRUE(ts[5].metadata().contains(controls::AnalogueGain.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> > > >
> > > > Break this long line
> > > >
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[5].metadata().get(controls::AnalogueGain).value(), 1.0, 0.1);
> > > > > +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[6].metadata().get(controls::AnalogueGain).value(), 4.0, 0.1);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	if (doImageTests) {
> > > > > +		/* No increase just before setting gain */
> > > > > +		EXPECT_NEAR(ts[5].getBrightnessChange(), 1.0, 0.05)
> > > > > +			<< "Brightness changed too much before the expected time of change (control delay too high?).";
> > > > > +		/*
> > > > > +		* Todo: I see a brightness change of roughly half the expected one.
> > > >
> > > > Wrong alignment here too, also \todo
> > > >
> > > > > +		* This is not yet understood and needs investigation
> > > >
> > > > Defintely some platform specific thing to investigate then ?
> > > >
> > > > > +		*/
> > > > > +		EXPECT_GT(ts[6].getBrightnessChange(), 1.7)
> > > > > +			<< "Brightness in frame " << 6 << " did not increase as expected (reference: "
> > > > > +			<< ts[5].getSpotBrightness() << " current: " << ts[6].getSpotBrightness() << " )" << std::endl;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +		/* No increase just after setting gain */
> > > > > +		EXPECT_NEAR(ts[7].getBrightnessChange(), 1.0, 0.05)
> > > > > +			<< "Brightness changed too much after the expected time of change (control delay too low?).";
> > > > > +
> > > > > +		/* No increase just after setting gain */
> > > > > +		EXPECT_NEAR(ts[8].getBrightnessChange(), 1.0, 0.05)
> > > > > +			<< "Brightness changed too much after the expected time of change (control delay too low?).";
> > > > > +	}
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +void PerFrameControls::testExposureGainFromFirstRequestGetsApplied()
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	auto timeSheet = startCaptureWithTimeSheet(5);
> > > > > +	auto &ts = *timeSheet;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	ts[0].controls().set(controls::ExposureTime, 10000);
> > > > > +	ts[0].controls().set(controls::AnalogueGain, 4.0);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	runCaptureSession();
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	ASSERT_TRUE(ts[4].metadata().contains(controls::ExposureTime.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> > > > > +	ASSERT_TRUE(ts[4].metadata().contains(controls::AnalogueGain.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> > > >
> > > > You can easily break these lines
> > > >
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	/* We expect it to be applied after 3 frames, the latest*/
> > > >
> > > > What if a sensor takes a longer time to apply exposure and gain ?
> > >
> > > Then we should adjust the test :-)
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[4].metadata().get(controls::ExposureTime).value(), 10000, 20);
> > > > > +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[4].metadata().get(controls::AnalogueGain).value(), 4.0, 0.1);
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +void PerFrameControls::testExposureGainFromFirstAndSecondRequestGetsApplied()
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	auto timeSheet = startCaptureWithTimeSheet(5);
> > > > > +	auto &ts = *timeSheet;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	ts[0].controls().set(controls::ExposureTime, 8000);
> > > > > +	ts[0].controls().set(controls::AnalogueGain, 2.0);
> > > > > +	ts[1].controls().set(controls::ExposureTime, 10000);
> > > > > +	ts[1].controls().set(controls::AnalogueGain, 4.0);
> > > >
> > > > As a general question, how do we guarantee the values you use to set
> > > > exposure and gains are valid for all possible sensors ?
> > > >
> > > > Shouldn't you inspect inspect the ControlInfo limit from
> > > > Camera::controls() and clamp the values in the min/max range ?
> > >
> > > I thought about that too. I started with values that most if not all
> > > sensor we care atm should support. I'm weary if it is worth the effort
> > > and that it would make the tests way less readable.  But you are right,
> > > that is an unsolved issue.
> >
> > Recording it with a \todo comment is fine for now
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	runCaptureSession();
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	ASSERT_TRUE(ts[4].metadata().contains(controls::ExposureTime.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> > > > > +	ASSERT_TRUE(ts[4].metadata().contains(controls::AnalogueGain.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> > > >
> > > > Ditto
> > > >
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	/* We expect it to be applied after 3 frames, the latest */
> > > > > +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[4].metadata().get(controls::ExposureTime).value(), 10000, 20);
> > > > > +	EXPECT_NEAR(ts[4].metadata().get(controls::AnalogueGain).value(), 4.0, 0.1);
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +void PerFrameControls::testExposureGainIsAppliedOnFirstFrame()
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	ControlList startValues;
> > > > > +	startValues.set(controls::ExposureTime, 5000);
> > > > > +	startValues.set(controls::AnalogueGain, 1.0);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	auto ts1 = startCaptureWithTimeSheet(3, &startValues);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	runCaptureSession();
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	ASSERT_TRUE((*ts1)[0].metadata().contains(controls::ExposureTime.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> > > > > +	ASSERT_TRUE((*ts1)[0].metadata().contains(controls::AnalogueGain.id())) << "Required metadata entry is missing";
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	EXPECT_NEAR((*ts1)[0].metadata().get(controls::ExposureTime).value(), 5000, 20);
> > > > > +	EXPECT_NEAR((*ts1)[0].metadata().get(controls::AnalogueGain).value(), 1.0, 0.02);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	/* Second capture with different values to ensure we don't hit default/old values */
> > > > > +	startValues.set(controls::ExposureTime, 15000);
> > > > > +	startValues.set(controls::AnalogueGain, 4.0);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	auto ts2 = startCaptureWithTimeSheet(3, &startValues);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	runCaptureSession();
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	EXPECT_NEAR((*ts2)[0].metadata().get(controls::ExposureTime).value(), 15000, 20);
> > > > > +	EXPECT_NEAR((*ts2)[0].metadata().get(controls::AnalogueGain).value(), 4.0, 0.02);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	if (doImageTests) {
> > > > > +		/* With 3x exposure and 4x gain we could expect a brightness increase of 2x */
> > > > > +		double brightnessChange = ts2->get(1).getSpotBrightness() / ts1->get(1).getSpotBrightness();
> > > > > +		EXPECT_GT(brightnessChange, 2.0);
> > > > > +	}
> > > > > +}
> > > > > diff --git a/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.h b/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.h
> > > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > > index 00000000..a341c61f
> > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > +++ b/src/apps/lc-compliance/per_frame_controls.h
> > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
> > > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later */
> > > > > +/*
> > > > > + * Copyright (C) 2024, Ideas on Board Oy
> > > > > + *
> > > > > + * per_frame_controls.h - Tests for per frame controls
> > > > > + */
> > > > > +
> > > > > +#pragma once
> > > > > +
> > > > > +#include <memory>
> > > > > +
> > > > > +#include <libcamera/libcamera.h>
> > > > > +
> > > > > +#include "../common/event_loop.h"
> > > > > +
> > > > > +#include "simple_capture.h"
> > > > > +#include "time_sheet.h"
> > > > > +
> > > > > +class PerFrameControls : public SimpleCapture
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +public:
> > > > > +	PerFrameControls(std::shared_ptr<libcamera::Camera> camera);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	std::shared_ptr<TimeSheet>
> > > > > +	startCaptureWithTimeSheet(unsigned int framesToCapture, const libcamera::ControlList *controls = nullptr);
> > > > > +	void runCaptureSession();
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	void testExposureGainChangeOnSameFrame();
> > > > > +	void testFramePreciseExposureChange();
> > > > > +	void testFramePreciseGainChange();
> > > > > +	void testExposureGainIsAppliedOnFirstFrame();
> > > > > +	void testExposureGainFromFirstRequestGetsApplied();
> > > > > +	void testExposureGainFromFirstAndSecondRequestGetsApplied();
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	int queueRequest(libcamera::Request *request);
> > > > > +	void requestComplete(libcamera::Request *request) override;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	unsigned int queueCount_;
> > > > > +	unsigned int captureCount_;
> > > > > +	unsigned int captureLimit_;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	std::weak_ptr<TimeSheet> timeSheet_;
> > > > > +};
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.40.1
> > > > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for all the input :-)
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Stefan