-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
Fixes for dual-source blending validation #9200
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
andyleiserson
merged 2 commits into
gfx-rs:trunk
from
andyleiserson:dual-src-validation
Mar 18, 2026
+294
−127
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
thought: This is/these are technically a breaking change, which we normally advertise, but this is a bug fix for spec. validation. My other validation fix PRs have advertised these as
BREAKING, so maybe we should talk about some consistent criteria for doing that.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's a borderline case. Somewhat recently I added a "validation" section in the changelog which lists a bunch of validation changes, at least some of which probably make it stricter, and none of which are noted as breaking.
That seems right to me... I think it's worth reserving the "breaking" label for API changes that require users to update their code, or for validation changes that we think carry a high risk of breakage. Breaking code that wouldn't work in Chrome/Dawn (although I can't say I specifically checked that here), that was never legal under the spec, and where the problem will be obvious (shader compilation error rather than e.g. a runtime behavior change), doesn't seem like it needs to be called out at the same level and dilute the communication of the truly breaking changes.