Dec. 11, 2024
12:35 p.m.
On Wed Dec 11 18:35:45 2024 +0000, Eugene McArdle wrote: > @epo are there any outstanding changes you'd like to this code? I'm > happy to squash the last couple of commits together so we only have one > for the behaviour changes and one for the tests, just let me know :thumbsup: a couple of comments: - we tend to have the tests first (and in your case a single commit would do, so please squash the 3 commits into one), marking the failing test with todo_wine - then the fix in a second patch (removing the todo_wine for the tests that now succeed) I'm still not convinced we grasp the whole situation: - basically, your current tests show that in some cases the current scan is aborted, and its mask (and position) are changed - all the failures end up with NO_MORE_FILES, which I can't tell if this mirrors all the Windows behavior or if it's a short coming to tests themselves (eg current code returns NO_MORE_FILES when all files have been read, while NO_SUCH_FILE is returned for an empty new scan; so perhaps we should discriminate between the two using a mask with wildcard and one partial (ie not returning all the entries at once)). - also, testing a NULL mask, an empty mask could be interesting for the patch to unix/file.c itself, I think you should write it by keeping all the changes within get_dir_cached_data() (just passing the extraneous restart_scan variable) -- https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/6904#note_90288