Re: advapi32: Add more RegLoadKey tests

[Alexandre Julliard]

James Hawkins  writes:
> @@ -1340,7 +1340,7 @@ static void load_keys( struct key *key, 
>      if ((read_next_line( &info ) != 1) ||
>          strcmp( info.buffer, "WINE REGISTRY Version 2" ))
>      {
> -
>    set_error( STATUS_NOT_REGISTRY_FILE );
> -
>    set_error( STATUS_SUCCESS );
>    goto done;
> }

I don't think you want to fail silently here.
> @@ -1382,6 +1382,19 @@ static void load_registry( struct key *k
>  {
>      struct file *file;
>      int fd;
> -
> - static const WCHAR machineW[] = { 'M','A','C','H','I','N','E',0 };
> - static const WCHAR userW[] = { 'U','S','E','R',0 };
> -
> - if (key && key->parent)
> - {
> -
>    if (strcmpiW( key->parent->name, machineW ) && 
> -
>        strcmpiW( key->parent->name, userW ))
> -
>    {
> -
>        set_error( STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED );
> -
>        return;
> -
>    }
> - }

We discussed this already, we don't want to do it that way (not to
mention that keys can be named Machine or User inside the tree too, so
your test is wrong anyway).

Note that a lot of your new tests fail on XP too, so I'm not sure
there's much point in changing the Wine code to make them succeed.

advapi32: Add more RegLoadKey tests

[James Hawkins]

On 27 Apr 2005 20:12:39 +0200, Alexandre Julliard  wrote:
> We discussed this already, we don't want to do it that way (not to
> mention that keys can be named Machine or User inside the tree too, so
> your test is wrong anyway).
>
> Note that a lot of your new tests fail on XP too, so I'm not sure
> there's much point in changing the Wine code to make them succeed.

I understand the first point.  I write the tests in XP and test them
to make sure they pass, and I don't send in any tests that don't pass
under XP (except for needing the permission set for save/load key but
that's for a different reason).  I don't know why they would be
failing for other XP's besides mine.