Re: ddraw/tests: New visual back buffer flipping tests. (try 3)

[Stefan Dösinger]

> +    hr = IDirectDrawSurface_AddAttachedSurface(Primary, Backbuffer);
> +    todo_wine ok(hr == DD_OK || broken(hr == DDERR_CANNOTATTACHSURFACE),
> +       "Attaching a back buffer to a front buffer returned %08x\n", hr);
> The patch looks OK. Out of curiosity, which windows system returns DDERR_CANNOTATTACHSURFACE? Allowing this result with broken() is OK since you have an application that depends on this behavior.

ddraw/tests: New visual back buffer flipping tests. (try 3)

[Oldřich Jedlička]

On Wednesday 25 August 2010 12:03:50 Stefan Dösinger wrote:
> > +    hr = IDirectDrawSurface_AddAttachedSurface(Primary, Backbuffer);
> > +    todo_wine ok(hr == DD_OK || broken(hr == DDERR_CANNOTATTACHSURFACE),
> > +       "Attaching a back buffer to a front buffer returned %08x\n", hr);
>
> The patch looks OK. Out of curiosity, which windows system returns
> DDERR_CANNOTATTACHSURFACE? Allowing this result with broken() is OK since
> you have an application that depends on this behavior.

I've searched my previous patches and I think that I've copied it during my 
first tries from dsurface.c: AttachmentTest. I don't know if it is needed in my 
tests too, probably not for the testbot. It looked like a good idea to have 
the check too if it had been in AttachmentTest already.

I can remove it with further patch (also from the dsurface.c: 
BackBufferAttachmentFlipTest). Should I remove it? I will wait for the patch to 
be applied first and I will send small correction to remove the broken() check, 
right? I can remove the broken() check from my "New attachment tests for 3D 
back buffers." patch too.

Should I remove it or keep it?

Oldřich.