Re: msxml3/tests: add additional conformance tests that show incorrect xpath behavior in wine

[Nikolay Sivov]

On 6/29/2013 20:26, John Chadwick wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 4:48 AM, Nikolay Sivov <bunglehead(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 6/27/2013 11:46, John Chadwick wrote:
> > > +    /* msxml's selectNodes returns a document ordered nodelist,
> > > regardless of
> > > +     * whether or not the xpath nodelist was document ordered... */
> > > +
> > > ole_check(IXMLDOMNode_selectNodes(rootNode,_bstr_("ancestor-or-self::node()"),
> > > &list));
> > > +    todo_expect_list_and_release(list, "D1 E2.D1");
> > > Please use explicit check for return value, like ok(hr == S_OK, "...");,
> > > Which return value am I missing? FWIW, I'm doing what the other tests
> > > are doing, as far as I can tell.
> > > What I mean is that use of macros like ole_check() is discouraged, it's 
> > > better to have explicit check for return value.
> > also you probably don't need another macro for list checking,
> > isn't it enough to wrap expect_list_and_release() in todo_wine {} ?
> > Could it be that simple? I tried to do
> > todo_wine expect_list_and_release(list, "D1 E2.D1");
> > But it fails before the actual test occurs, because another test
> > inside the macro succeeds, apparently. Are you saying if I wrap the
> > expect_list_and_release macro call in a scope, it will work? I will
> > try.
> > Yes, I see what you mean. In order to improve situation I'd suggest to 
> > move to using
> > table of test queries and results. This way you have less code and no 
> > duplication,
> > todo flag should just be stored in test data. We already have some tests 
> > done this way,
> > it's much easier to maintain.
>
> I figured creating a new macro would be a better solution than
> duplicating the code separately in two locations, but if it'd be
> better to just not use the macro, then that's simple enough to fix.