Re: kernel32/tests: add test for RemoveDirectory
Zhenbo Li <litimetal(a)gmail.com> wrote:
+ /* remove a nonexist directory */ + rc = RemoveDirectoryA(directory); + todo_wine + ok(!rc && GetLastError() == ERROR_FILE_NOT_FOUND, + "Expected ERROR_FILE_NOT_FOUND, got ret=%d, gle=%d\n", rc, GetLastError() );
This kind of test for several values simultaneously is really very awkward as a starting point for any person who is going to work on this, or just is looking for a simple bug to fix and greps for todo_wine in the tests. First of all it's not clear where the failure is: is it the API failing to return correct return value, or is it just last error which is set differently? I admit that the error message mentions both values, but it's often more useful to spot areas with todo_wine statements and clearly see the reason of a failure without actually running the test. -- Dmitry.
2013/12/25 Dmitry Timoshkov <dmitry(a)baikal.ru>:
Zhenbo Li <litimetal(a)gmail.com> wrote:
+ /* remove a nonexist directory */ + rc = RemoveDirectoryA(directory); + todo_wine + ok(!rc && GetLastError() == ERROR_FILE_NOT_FOUND, + "Expected ERROR_FILE_NOT_FOUND, got ret=%d, gle=%d\n", rc, GetLastError() );
This kind of test for several values simultaneously is really very awkward as a starting point for any person who is going to work on this, or just is looking for a simple bug to fix and greps for todo_wine in the tests. First of all it's not clear where the failure is: is it the API failing to return correct return value, or is it just last error which is set differently? I admit that the error message mentions both values, but it's often more useful to spot areas with todo_wine statements and clearly see the reason of a failure without actually running the test.
-- Dmitry.
You are right, I'll send another patch. -- Have a nice day! Zhenbo Li
I think that if you want GetLastError(), "SetLastError( 0xdeadbeef );" should be added before every function which could SetLastError(). -- Thanks， Tao, Liu At 2013-12-25 22:23:44,"Zhenbo Li" <litimetal(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2013/12/25 Dmitry Timoshkov <dmitry(a)baikal.ru>:
Zhenbo Li <litimetal(a)gmail.com> wrote:
+ /* remove a nonexist directory */ + rc = RemoveDirectoryA(directory); + todo_wine + ok(!rc && GetLastError() == ERROR_FILE_NOT_FOUND, + "Expected ERROR_FILE_NOT_FOUND, got ret=%d, gle=%d\n", rc, GetLastError() );
This kind of test for several values simultaneously is really very awkward as a starting point for any person who is going to work on this, or just is looking for a simple bug to fix and greps for todo_wine in the tests. First of all it's not clear where the failure is: is it the API failing to return correct return value, or is it just last error which is set differently? I admit that the error message mentions both values, but it's often more useful to spot areas with todo_wine statements and clearly see the reason of a failure without actually running the test.
-- Dmitry.
You are right, I'll send another patch.
-- Have a nice day! Zhenbo Li
2013/12/26 刘涛 <wendaotao(a)163.com>:
I think that if you want GetLastError(), "SetLastError( 0xdeadbeef );" should be added before every function which could SetLastError().
Thanks for mentioning that. Most wine test cases don't call SetLastError, I don't know the reason, and I just followed previous code. BTW, in patch f39c64a85ce3617bd1008f I've added `SetLastError(0xdeadbeef)`, but it was removed by Alexandre Julliard -- Have a nice day! Zhenbo Li
participants (3)
-
Dmitry Timoshkov -
Zhenbo Li -
刘涛