On 6/14/11 3:04 PM, Frédéric Delanoy wrote:
2011/6/14 Jacek Cabanjacek@codeweavers.com:
On 6/14/11 10:55 AM, Frédéric Delanoy wrote:
011/6/14 Jacek Cabanjacek@codeweavers.com:
Hi Frédéric,
On 6/13/11 10:19 PM, Frédéric Delanoy wrote:
}else if(err) {if (!is_todo_wine)ok(0, "unexpected char 0x%x position %d in line %d (got'%.*s', wanted '%.*s')\n",
*err, (int)(err-out_ptr), line,(int)(out_nl-out_ptr),
out_ptr, (int)(exp_nl-exp_ptr), exp_ptr);elsetodo_wineok(0, "unexpected char 0x%x position %d in line %d (got'%.*s', wanted '%.*s')\n",
*err, (int)(err-out_ptr), line,(int)(out_nl-out_ptr), out_ptr,
(int)(exp_nl-exp_ptr-sizeof(todo_wine_cmd)),exp_ptr+sizeof(todo_wine_cmd));
You may change tests to ok(!err, ....) here and make this else unconditional to avoid having ok(TRUE, ...) tests later.
Which else are you talking about?
The following ok(TRUE,...) serves when there's a todo_wine which has "succeeded", to get messages like "Test succeeded inside todo block: match at line XXX" Without it (i.e. without at least one "true" OK), successful todos aren't caught, as Dan Kegel pointed out (and I've verified).
I was talking about something like this:
}else { if(!is_todo_wine) ... else todo_wine ok(!err, ...); }
If the tests succeeded, err will be NULL, so this ok will produce "Test succeeded inside todo block" error.
I tried what you say but it didn't work: the test runner doesn't even go that far, and doesn't detect any todo, just says something like
batch: 44 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 0 failures), 0 skipped.
instead of the> 100 tests (with a couple of todos for the mkdir patch) it should make.
Simply replacing "ok(0,...)" and "ok(TRUE,...)" by "ok(!res,...)" works,
Sure it works. But... what were your previous sentences about?
but is not more clear IMHO
ok(TRUE, ...) simply doesn't make sense. All we care is that tests don't fail. A number of succeeded tests doesn't matter and ok(TRUE, ...) is just an useless expression. todo_wine ok(TRUE, ...) makes some sense, but still, it looks hackish, so I'd rather avoid it.
Anyway, the current test runner code is a bit fragile/ugly at times right now, and would need some refactoring (e.g. to factor out @keyword@ expansion, give better error messages,...) but that is probably out of scope of this patch series.
I don't see what's so ugly about it. Factoring out @keyword@ expansions won't make things any cleaner, IMO. Parsing code is so simple here that I wouldn't make a big deal out of it. Error messages don't matter much - after all you should never see them. Perhaps printing the whole failed line may help writing tests a bit, but that's just one trivial change here.
Jacek