On November 9, 2004 08:54 am, James Hawkins wrote:
Alternatively couldn't we just call SHDeleteKey, now it has been fixed.
I guess it's a possibility, but I wanted to keep it like the original code. Plus it doesn't seem like we should use what we're testing in a test in a non-testing manner. This version works now, so IMO we should leave it.
I disagree. The test should only be there to prove that it all works. After all, there are tests (I hope) that RegDeleteKey actually works. (I wonder if they actually handle the differences between 95/98 series and NT series). The current structure (using enumeration etc.) is surely only there because SHDeleteKey wouldn't do the job at the time and we had to write the more complex code (and presumably depended upon some incorrect behaviour to achieve the aim.)
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 08:18:47 -0800, Bill Medland
billmedland@mercuryspeed.com wrote:
On November 9, 2004 12:10 am, James Hawkins wrote:
oops one-letter typo. This is the correct version.
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 01:46:50 -0500, James Hawkins truiken@gmail.com
wrote:
the previous implementation of delete_key only deleted subkeys of a requested key to delete. this fixes that and also fixes test failures that crop up in advapi32/registry because of extraneous keys in Software\Wine\Test.
Changelog * fix implementation of delete_key for shreg test
Alternatively couldn't we just call SHDeleteKey, now it has been fixed.
-- James Hawkins