Re: [kernel32/tests] Fix some test failures on WinMe

[Alexandre Julliard]

Paul Vriens  writes:
> @@ -1894,10 +1895,18 @@ static void test_FindFirstFileExA(void)
>      ok(FindNextFile(handle, &search_results), "Fetching third file failed\n");
>      ok(CHECK_NAME(search_results.cFileName), "Invalid third entry - %s\n", search_results.cFileName);
> - ok(FindNextFile(handle, &search_results), "Fetching fourth file failed\n");
> - SetLastError(0xdeadbeef);
> - ret = FindNextFile(handle, &search_results);
> - ok( ret ||
> -
>    broken(!ret && GetLastError() == ERROR_NO_MORE_FILES), /* WinMe */
> -
>    "Fetching fourth file failed\n");

It sounds like it's actually respecting the FindExSearchLimitToDirectories
flag, so I'm not sure this qualifies as broken. Maybe testing without
that flag too would be a better test.

[kernel32/tests] Fix some test failures on WinMe

[Paul Vriens]

On 09/24/2009 03:22 PM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Paul Vriens  writes:
> > @@ -1894,10 +1895,18 @@ static void test_FindFirstFileExA(void)
> >       ok(FindNextFile(handle,&search_results), "Fetching third file failed\n");
> >       ok(CHECK_NAME(search_results.cFileName), "Invalid third entry - %s\n", search_results.cFileName);
> > - ok(FindNextFile(handle,&search_results), "Fetching fourth file failed\n");
> > - SetLastError(0xdeadbeef);
> > - ret = FindNextFile(handle,&search_results);
> > - ok( ret ||
> > -
> >    broken(!ret&&  GetLastError() == ERROR_NO_MORE_FILES), /* WinMe */
> > -
> >    "Fetching fourth file failed\n");
>
> It sounds like it's actually respecting the FindExSearchLimitToDirectories
> flag, so I'm not sure this qualifies as broken. Maybe testing without
> that flag too would be a better test.

I will check that, thanks.

One thing to keep in mind is that these tests succeed on all other 
platforms. WinMe was one of the first to have this function 
(FindFirstFileEx).

[kernel32/tests] Fix some test failures on WinMe

[Paul Vriens]

On 09/24/2009 03:22 PM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Paul Vriens  writes:
> > @@ -1894,10 +1895,18 @@ static void test_FindFirstFileExA(void)
> >       ok(FindNextFile(handle,&search_results), "Fetching third file failed\n");
> >       ok(CHECK_NAME(search_results.cFileName), "Invalid third entry - %s\n", search_results.cFileName);
> > - ok(FindNextFile(handle,&search_results), "Fetching fourth file failed\n");
> > - SetLastError(0xdeadbeef);
> > - ret = FindNextFile(handle,&search_results);
> > - ok( ret ||
> > -
> >    broken(!ret&&  GetLastError() == ERROR_NO_MORE_FILES), /* WinMe */
> > -
> >    "Fetching fourth file failed\n");
>
> It sounds like it's actually respecting the FindExSearchLimitToDirectories
> flag, so I'm not sure this qualifies as broken. Maybe testing without
> that flag too would be a better test.

Something like the attached?