On 08/25/11 14:40, Octavian Voicu wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Jacek Cabanjacek@codeweavers.com wrote:
As long as there is a failure (like in your patch), I'm fine with return. Just let's not pretend it's somehow valid run with skip() call. Also testing hres is cleaner than unk, IMO.
Yeah, the skip will only come after a failure because unk is set to NULL if CoCreateInstance fails. Gonna send a try 2 with testing hres; this way it will be clearer that it cannot skip unless a failure was recorded.
What I meant is that skip() should not be there, test failure is right and enough in this case.
Jacek