On 08/30/2010 11:21 AM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Now you are overdoing it. I said to remove broken() for minor spelling differences, not for everything. For instance confusing 936 and 950 codepages for Chinese is broken, it's not just a spelling difference
Sorry, I'm trying to do my best but
Not all of them, but those that don't make sense
was too vague so I considered the following as a rule
are both OK since they both appear on Windows
(appeared on window = ok() )
So, just to be clear
- todo_wine ok(!strcmp(ret, "Chinese (Simplified)_People's Republic of China.936") - || broken(!strcmp(ret, "Chinese_People's Republic of China.936")) - || broken(!strcmp(ret, "Chinese_Taiwan.950")), "ret = %s\n", ret); + ok(!strcmp(ret, "Chinese (Simplified)_People's Republic of China.936") + || !strcmp(ret, "Chinese_People's Republic of China.936") + || broken(!strcmp(ret, "Chinese_Taiwan.950")), "ret = %s\n", ret); is correct
- todo_wine ok(!strcmp(ret, "Chinese (Traditional)_Taiwan.950") - || broken(!strcmp(ret, "Chinese_Taiwan.950")), "ret = %s\n", ret); + ok(!strcmp(ret, "Chinese (Traditional)_Taiwan.950") + || !strcmp(ret, "Chinese_Taiwan.950"), "ret = %s\n", ret); this one too
And what about not returned strings e.g.
- ok(!strcmp(ret, "English_New Zealand.1252") - || broken(!strcmp(ret, "English_United States.1252")), "ret = %s\n", ret); + ok(!strcmp(ret, "English_New Zealand.1252"), "ret = %s\n", ret);
Should I keep them ? (in this case, transform the broken() in ok() ) Or delete them as I did ?
Thanks