Hi Alexandre
Well if you do not get a ERROR_INSUFFICIENT_BUFFER back, then cbCacheEntryInfo will not be changed, and that means that using that value in a following HeapAlloc may cause different kind of problems. If cbCacheEntryInfo were zero, this will cause the following HeapAlloc to succesed, and return a pointer to a zero size buffer. The pointer will in turn be used to access some element outside of the zero size buffer. This will either give a random value, which isn't a problem, or if the allocated block is on the border of allocated memory, this will actually cause a SIGSEGV. And I consider that to be a bad thing. So I think you need to test for that value, if do not want "random" SIGSEGV to happen during tests.
That problem is a common problem when the urlcache run full. And although Piotr have added code that will expand the urlcache, there is a limit on the cache, so it may run full for some people.
Best Regards Morten Rønne
Den 09-04-2012 18:22, Alexandre Julliard skrev:
Morten Rønnemorten.roenne@tdcadsl.dk writes:
diff --git a/dlls/wininet/tests/urlcache.c b/dlls/wininet/tests/urlcache.c index 02d8d28..1bf3f23 100644 --- a/dlls/wininet/tests/urlcache.c +++ b/dlls/wininet/tests/urlcache.c @@ -60,7 +60,20 @@ static void test_find_url_cache_entriesA(void) hEnumHandle = FindFirstUrlCacheEntry(NULL, NULL,&cbCacheEntryInfo); ok(!hEnumHandle, "FindFirstUrlCacheEntry should have failed\n"); ok(GetLastError() == ERROR_INSUFFICIENT_BUFFER, "FindFirstUrlCacheEntry should have set last error to ERROR_INSUFFICIENT_BUFFER instead of %d\n", GetLastError());
- if (GetLastError() != ERROR_INSUFFICIENT_BUFFER)
- {
skip("Find*UrlCacheEntry tests skipped, due to wrong return value\n");return;- }
You don't need to add skip() for that sort of thing, it's not supposed to happen, and if it does there will already be a test failure in the report.