On 04/21/2010 07:21 AM, Stefan Leichter wrote:
Am Tuesday 20 April 2010 20:57:41 schrieb Paul Vriens:
On 04/20/2010 08:37 PM, Stefan Leichter wrote:
Am Tuesday 20 April 2010 07:59:22 schrieb Paul Vriens:
On 04/19/2010 11:44 PM, Stefan Leichter wrote:
include/wine/test.h | 6 +++++- 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)Hi Stefan,
What's the idea/thought behind this (or what problem are you trying to solve)?
Hi Paul,
the problem is the "command line parsing" of ShellExecuteEx, see bug19666 (http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19666#c3).
When a directory contains two executables where the name of the first, without extension, is the leading part of the name of the second and the second file have a blank at the position where the first file has the dot, wine implementation of ShellExecuteEx starts the first executable when the name of the second given to ShellExecuteEx.
If a unittest call the second executable via ShellExecuteEx, the first executable is started and the test target is the trailing part of the filename including the extension. This causes a test failure because the test target does not exist.
Example: test file.exe test file two.exe
Builtin ShellExecuteEx starts always "test file.exe". If "test file two.exe" was passed as name to be ShellExecuteEx argv[1] will be "two.exe".
To get around this problem and make a valid unittest without fixing the problem, i looked for another way to pass the test target to the executable.
This statement classifies this patch as a hack, not?
What is your suggestion about my last point, which you removed silently?
Sorry for that but that last point looked to me like you wanted to have a test for ShellExecuteEx without any parameter. Not sure what to comment/suggest on that.
I must say that I haven't thoroughly checked the code/patches. It's just the statements "get around" and "without fixing the problem" that triggered me.