On 1/18/06, Detlef Riekenberg wine.dev@web.de wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 18.01.2006, 13:28 -0600 schrieb James Hawkins:
There is one case where I think it's leaning towards the OK side, though it still bugs me, and that is the advpack:GetVersionFromFile tests.
This test is in the wrong File (file.c and tests/advpack.c).
The GetVersionFromFile tests were written before the files.c test was written, but if you want to change it, you're more than welcome to, but it's not a big deal.
There's really no way to determine (easily) what the results for that function should be and then do an OK on the results,
Maybe something like:
major = minor = 0x00dead00 GetVersionFromFile .. and validate the Returned data with known limits (NT3.1 and win2003) 6.0 >= major >= 3.1
Or use GetFileVersionInfo / VerQueryValue to read the exact values from the dll.
This is of course the non-easy way I was referring to, but I should really call it the non-trivial method. We'd basically have to write a function in the test suite called get_file_version that does what we do in our implementation of GetVersionFromFile to get the file version and compare it with the real results from GetVersionFromFile, but that's way over the top. Keep in mind that it still bugs me that we use trace even for this test, because unless you're debugging the function, no one really looks at the results of the trace.
GetVersionFromFile does not test for files without resources (GetModuleFileName on NULL for the advpack_test-binary as example) and for nonexistent Files.
I don't really see what you're getting at here. Are you suggesting we should add these tests? Same thing as above, you're more than welcome to add the tests.
-- James Hawkins