Re: [quartz/tests] Make tests run on everything lower then Vista (Try 2)

[Alexander Dorofeyev]

Paul Vriens wrote:
> Hi,
>
> RegDeleteTreeW is only available on Vista. (Were these tests run on 
> Windows to
> verify?).
> Yes most of it was tested on XP, except this final registry cleanup 
> thing, sorry my mistake.  Also it ran without errors with previous 
> version of your patch on XP here.
>
> This version simply replaces the RegDeleteTree by a RegDeleteKey 
> (which is
> sufficient as there is only one value underneath the key).
> This is not necessarily the case, Filtermapper's Register... methods add 
> values and create subkeys in that key. I think it will have at least 
> "Pins" subkey in the end. It was causing problms, until I found what I 
> thought is a good safe and easy solution (RegDeleteTree). To ensure 
> everything is removed, and especially if some Unregister.. calls fail 
> for whatever reason, it really is preferable to do a recursive delete. 
> If it takes copypasting a function then so be it. I think your previous 
> patch was better, but maybe somebody noticed a problem with it, I don't 
> know.

[quartz/tests] Make tests run on everything lower then Vista (Try 2)

[Paul Vriens]

Alexander Dorofeyev wrote:
> Paul Vriens wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > RegDeleteTreeW is only available on Vista. (Were these tests run on 
> > Windows to
> > verify?).
> > Yes most of it was tested on XP, except this final registry cleanup 
> > thing, sorry my mistake.  Also it ran without errors with previous 
> > version of your patch on XP here.
> > This version simply replaces the RegDeleteTree by a RegDeleteKey 
> > (which is
> > sufficient as there is only one value underneath the key).
> > This is not necessarily the case, Filtermapper's Register... methods add 
> > values and create subkeys in that key. I think it will have at least 
> > "Pins" subkey in the end. It was causing problms, until I found what I 
> > thought is a good safe and easy solution (RegDeleteTree). To ensure 
> > everything is removed, and especially if some Unregister.. calls fail 
> > for whatever reason, it really is preferable to do a recursive delete. 
> > If it takes copypasting a function then so be it. I think your previous 
> > patch was better, but maybe somebody noticed a problem with it, I don't 
> > know.

I've checked this on W2K3 and WinXP-SP3 and it only creates that one registry 
key with one value (Default) underneath. There is another key created which 
isn't deleted:

HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\ActiveMovie\devenum\{guid}

This key has 4 values.

This key is overwritten when a new registration occurs.

-- 
Cheers,

Paul.

[quartz/tests] Make tests run on everything lower then Vista (Try 2)

[Alexander Dorofeyev]

Paul Vriens wrote:
> I've checked this on W2K3 and WinXP-SP3 and it only creates that one 
> registry
> key with one value (Default) underneath. There is another key created which 
> isn't deleted:
>
> HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\ActiveMovie\devenum\{guid}
>
> This key has 4 values.
>
> This key is overwritten when a new registration occurs
> Hmm, during the course of the test there should definitely be keys 
> created in HKCR\CLSID\{guid} by filtermapper and they were during my 
> tests. I guess they are removed by Unregister... calls (can be checked 
> by commenting them). On a second thought, I guess the UnregisterFilter 
> also should remove Pins subkey, probably that's why there's nothing left 
> there. Can't recheck myself right now, unfortunately.  Then deletekey vs 
> deletetree only matters when something in unregistration unexpectedly 
> fails, but still.

I'll look into other keys, I guess it's some leftovers from 
filtermapper2 stuff and more cleanup must be added.