[PATCH] ntdll: show/test the similarity of the first two outputparameters between RtlDosPathNameToNtPathName_U_WithStatus andRtlDosPathNameToRelativeNtPathName_U_WithStatus

[Stefan Leichter]

Signed-off-by: Stefan Leichter <sle85276(a)gmx.de>
---
  dlls/ntdll/tests/path.c | 80 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  1 file changed, 80 insertions(+)

[Nikolay Sivov]

On 04/13/2018 09:17 AM, Stefan Leichter wrote:
> +    statusAbs = pRtlDosPathNameToNtPathName_U_WithStatus( path, &nameAbsW, &outpathAbsW, NULL );
> +    statusRel = pRtlDosPathNameToRelativeNtPathName_U_WithStatus( path, &nameRelW, &outpathRelW, NULL );
> +    ok(statusAbs == statusRel, "Got different results for path %s: %#x/%#x.\n", wine_dbgstr_w(path), statusAbs, statusRel);
> +	if(statusAbs == statusRel) {
> +	    ok(!lstrcmpW(nameAbsW.Buffer, nameRelW.Buffer), "for source %s nt names differ: %s/%s.\n",
> +			wine_dbgstr_w(path), wine_dbgstr_w(nameAbsW.Buffer), wine_dbgstr_w(nameRelW.Buffer));
> +		ok(!lstrcmpW(outpathAbsW, outpathRelW), "for source %s folders differ: %s/%s.\n",
> +			wine_dbgstr_w(path), wine_dbgstr_w(outpathAbsW), wine_dbgstr_w(outpathRelW));
> +	}
> +    RtlFreeUnicodeString( &nameAbsW );
> +    RtlFreeUnicodeString( &nameRelW );

This looks a bit broken. Matching statuses don't mean buffers are 
filled. What's a point of testing this together? I think it's more 
valuable to have two separate test functions, one for each.
> +    if (!pRtlDosPathNameToRelativeNtPathName_U_WithStatus || !pRtlDosPathNameToNtPathName_U_WithStatus)
> +    {
> +        win_skip("RtlDosPathNameToRelativeNtPathName_U_WithStatus() is %ssupported.\n",
> +                 (pRtlDosPathNameToRelativeNtPathName_U_WithStatus ? "" : "not "));
> +        win_skip("RtlDosPathNameToNtPathName_U_WithStatus() is %ssupported.\n",
> +                 (pRtlDosPathNameToNtPathName_U_WithStatus ? "" : "not "));
> +        return;
> +    }
> According to testbot results thoes are both available or both missing. 
> Even if it was possible to have one and not another, printing skip 
> message that says that something is supported is confusing. And again, 
> can you test them both separately instead?