Re: kernel32: Additional SetThreadPriorityTest (try 6)

[James Hawkins]

On 7/24/07, Matt Jones <mattj(a)google.com> wrote:
> Reformatted tests to address James' email

+   SetThreadPriority(curthread,min_priority);
+   SetLastError(0xdeadbeef);
+   result = SetThreadPriority(curthread,min_priority-1);

Is there a reason you don't check the result from the first call to
SetThreadPriority?  If the call hypothetically fails (something you
have to assume can happen), then the rest of the test is not valid.

-- 
James Hawkins

kernel32: Additional SetThreadPriorityTest (try 6)

[Matt Jones]

At this point in the test suite, SetThreadPriority has already been
tested, so this would be duplicating the existing test. I'd be happy
to add this in as well, but it seems unnecessary.

On 7/24/07, James Hawkins <truiken(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/24/07, Matt Jones <mattj(a)google.com> wrote:
> > Reformatted tests to address James' email
>
> +   SetThreadPriority(curthread,min_priority);
> +   SetLastError(0xdeadbeef);
> +   result = SetThreadPriority(curthread,min_priority-1);
>
> Is there a reason you don't check the result from the first call to
> SetThreadPriority?  If the call hypothetically fails (something you
> have to assume can happen), then the rest of the test is not valid.
>
> --
> James Hawkins

kernel32: Additional SetThreadPriorityTest (try 6)

[James Hawkins]

On 7/24/07, Matt Jones <mattj(a)google.com> wrote:
> At this point in the test suite, SetThreadPriority has already been
> tested, so this would be duplicating the existing test. I'd be happy
> to add this in as well, but it seems unnecessary.

Fair enough :)  By the way, make sure to bottom-post on the wine MLs.
> On 7/24/07, James Hawkins <truiken(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/24/07, Matt Jones <mattj(a)google.com> wrote:
> > > Reformatted tests to address James' email
> >
> > +   SetThreadPriority(curthread,min_priority);
> > +   SetLastError(0xdeadbeef);
> > +   result = SetThreadPriority(curthread,min_priority-1);
> >
> > Is there a reason you don't check the result from the first call to
> > SetThreadPriority?  If the call hypothetically fails (something you
> > have to assume can happen), then the rest of the test is not valid.
> >
> > --
> > James Hawkins

-- 
James Hawkins