"Andriy Palamarchuk" apa3a@yahoo.com wrote:
IMO unicode tests should be executed unconditionally, they just should be marked as "expected to fail".
I prefer all tests to succeed on all MS platforms. The goal of the tests is to document Windows behavior and by definition they should not fail on Windows.
In that case you are going to test only very small subset of win32 API.
Unicode tests, failing on Win95 may, or may not succeed in other Win32 API implementations working in win95 mode.
There are no "Win32 API implementations working in win95 mode". At all.
This does not matter for these implementations. You'll have some Unicode tests which fail under Wine, others which succeed under Wine. We are not going to change Wine because of this, but will have to mark them differently, like FAIL_MS_UNICODE(FAIL_WINE_UNICODE(test)). Now add to this mess ODIN Unicode failed tests.
Besides, it is more convenient to find out conditional one time and go through block of tests than think about each test conditional.
It's more convenient IMO to not bother to limit ourself by any borders at all. Just do run all available tests and analyze the results. If something fails, find out why, and if needed mark it as "expected to fail".
If you are going to conditionally run unicode tests, you eventually will come to a conclusion to conditionally run too much tests (native APIs, etc.)
Yes, we document a few Windows platforms together and conditionals indicate differences between them. This is not my fault they are so different :-)
I said it before: there is no different windows platforms from the Wine point of view.
Could you explain the problem of "conditionally running too much tests"? What is bad about it?
Same comment as above. There is no code branches in the Wine code if(win95) do something else if(nt40) do something else else do something else
Conditional tests should not exist either.
If tomorrow microsoft will invent "yet another win32 platform" are you going to add new conditional test suit?