On Fri, 22 Jan 2016, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Francois Gouget fgouget@codeweavers.com writes:
Signed-off-by: Francois Gouget fgouget@codeweavers.com
dlls/shell32/tests/shlexec.c | 75 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
diff --git a/dlls/shell32/tests/shlexec.c b/dlls/shell32/tests/shlexec.c index 8f03799..360fb2b 100644 --- a/dlls/shell32/tests/shlexec.c +++ b/dlls/shell32/tests/shlexec.c @@ -94,6 +94,28 @@ static int _todo_wait = 0; #define todo_wait for (_todo_wait = 1; _todo_wait; _todo_wait = 0)
static char shell_call[2048]=""; +static char last_shell_call[2048]=""; +static void WINETEST_PRINTF_ATTR(2,3) _okShell(int condition, const char *msg, ...) +{
- va_list valist;
- /* Note: if winetest_debug > 1 the ShellExecute() command has already been
* traced.*/- if (winetest_debug <= 1 && !condition && strcmp(last_shell_call, shell_call))
- {
winetest_trace("Called %s\n", shell_call);strcpy(last_shell_call, shell_call);- }
- va_start(valist, msg);
- winetest_vok(condition, msg, valist);
- va_end(valist);
+}
Why is that better than always printing it in the failing calls?
Because usually there is more than one failing call: there's the ok() after the shell_execute() and then multiple okChildXxx() calls to verify the data received by the child and there is often multiple failures. There is no reason for each of them to repeat the information about what ShellExecute() call failed. By comparing shell_call and last_shell_call okShell ensures that information is printed once before the series of failing tests.
It also makes it easier to ensure that this information is not duplicated when running with WINETEST_DEBUG > 1 since in that case shell_execute{_ex}() already traces the ShellExecute() call.
Another approach would be to systematically print the ShellExecute() call in shell_execute{_ex}() before we know if it fails or not. But that would only make the already large logs larger for no good reason.