Am Montag, den 20.10.2008, 19:04 +0400 schrieb Vitaly Perov:
I suspect (but I am definitely not an expert in this area), that the patch Vitaly Perov sent:
| + /* move many files into directory with FOF_MULTIDESTFILES */ | + set_curr_dir_path(from, "test?.txt\0"); | + set_curr_dir_path(to, "testdir2\0"); | + retval = SHFileOperationA(&shfo2); | + todo_wine | + { | + ok(retval == ERROR_SUCCESS, "Expected ERROR_SUCCESS, got %d\n", retval); | + ok(file_exists("testdir2\test2.txt"), "Expected the file 'test2.txt' to exist\n"); | + ok(file_exists("testdir2\test4.txt"), "Expected the directory 'test4.txt' to exist\n"); | + }
This test is not related to patch "shell32: FOF_MULTIDESTFILES must be set when copying files into directory" If the translation of "rather than" is "instead of", now I see my fault. But this test is passed in windows (win2k3). It doesn't pass in wine. So, it show difference between windows and wine behaviour. So, what's wrong in this test?
I honestly don't know. I can add that this test passes on XP SP3 too. It can be helpfull to include a history into the patch (saying: third resend: Changed <this and that>). One really has to ask Alexandre, or ask on wine-devel for feedback. Something like "Obviously, patch <http link here> did not get applied even after resending. Does anybody see anything obviously wrong with it?". As a guide to non-native speakers on #winehackers: Just ask (when julliard is online and not marked as ways) "julliard: What is wrong with <http link here>". Copy'n'paste all responses (recognizable by being from Alexandre or starting with your nickname) and try to make sense of them later.
Regards, Michael Karcher