"Ryan Cumming" <ryan(a)completely.kicks-ass.org> wrote:
On a side note, I made a pretty nice testcase for this, but there seems to be no dlls/ole32/tests directory.
Just send a file with tests to wine-patches and somebody else will make a makefile magic for you. -- Dmitry.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On November 15, 2002 01:31, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Just send a file with tests to wine-patches and somebody else will make a makefile magic for you.
My current testcase tests StgIsStorageFile on 5 different files. Would it be best to package the files with the test, or generate them at runtime? - -Ryan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE91NB5LGMzRzbJfbQRAuRUAJsGqHd6a0TduuLZJCMLjNXzA68kCgCfXYKK JRlQO/SM+OA/imZnKz3ijhE= =+cyF -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
"Ryan Cumming" <ryan(a)completely.kicks-ass.org> wrote:
On November 15, 2002 01:31, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Just send a file with tests to wine-patches and somebody else will make a makefile magic for you.
My current testcase tests StgIsStorageFile on 5 different files. Would it be best to package the files with the test, or generate them at runtime?
I'm actually not the right person to answer this question :-) It's up to Alexandre to decide. But if you will provide more information why you need to package the files with the test and what exactly that files are, it will make a picture more clear and a decision more well-founded. -- Dmitry.
Ryan Cumming <ryan(a)completely.kicks-ass.org> writes:
My current testcase tests StgIsStorageFile on 5 different files. Would it be best to package the files with the test, or generate them at runtime?
Generate them at runtime, definitely. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com
participants (3)
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Dmitry Timoshkov -
Ryan Cumming