Re: (try 2)advapi32: base implementation of LsaLookupNames2

[Paul Vriens]

Aric Stewart wrote:
> fix tests for win95
> ---
>  dlls/advapi32/lsa.c       |   51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  dlls/advapi32/tests/lsa.c |   82 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  2 files changed, 131 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Aric,

Just tested this on W2K.

All functions but LsaLookupNames2 are available on W2K. This means now all tests 
(even though there were only 6) are skipped.

Not sure it's worth the effort but maybe it's better to test for the existence 
of LsaLookupNames2 in the appropriate test only?

-- 
Cheers,

Paul.

(try 2)advapi32: base implementation of LsaLookupNames2

[Aric Stewart]

Thanks for doing this testing.  I think I will move the check to just 
skip the test. That way maybe that can become the standard for that 
test. Looking at msdn there are several lsa functions that are xp+ only 
so we do not want to start blocking the tests on all previous versions also.

thanks!
-aric

Paul Vriens wrote:
> Aric Stewart wrote:
> > fix tests for win95
> > ---
> >  dlls/advapi32/lsa.c       |   51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  dlls/advapi32/tests/lsa.c |   82 
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  2 files changed, 131 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hi Aric,
>
> Just tested this on W2K.
>
> All functions but LsaLookupNames2 are available on W2K. This means now 
> all tests (even though there were only 6) are skipped.
>
> Not sure it's worth the effort but maybe it's better to test for the 
> existence of LsaLookupNames2 in the appropriate test only?