Re: [1/5] DDraw: Some drivers return DDERR_INVALIDPARAMS if DXTn surfaces aren't supported
On 02/08/07, Stefan Dösinger stefan@codeweavers.com wrote:
- ok(hr == DD_OK || hr == DDERR_NOTEXTUREHW || DDERR_INVALIDPARAMS,
That doesn't do what you want it to do.
If the return value is irrelevant though, what's the point of the test?
Am Donnerstag, 2. August 2007 13:41 schrieb H. Verbeet:
On 02/08/07, Stefan Dösinger stefan@codeweavers.com wrote:
- ok(hr == DD_OK || hr == DDERR_NOTEXTUREHW || DDERR_INVALIDPARAMS,
That doesn't do what you want it to do.
oops...
If the return value is irrelevant though, what's the point of the test?
I want to catch all the possible return values from windows drivers, even if it's just for documentation purposes.
On 02/08/07, Stefan Dösinger stefan@codeweavers.com wrote:
If the return value is irrelevant though, what's the point of the test?
I want to catch all the possible return values from windows drivers, even if it's just for documentation purposes.
That doesn't seem very useful if there are no actual applications depending on those values.
Am Donnerstag, 2. August 2007 13:57 schrieb H. Verbeet:
On 02/08/07, Stefan Dösinger stefan@codeweavers.com wrote:
If the return value is irrelevant though, what's the point of the test?
I want to catch all the possible return values from windows drivers, even if it's just for documentation purposes.
That doesn't seem very useful if there are no actual applications depending on those values.
The idea is to catch a few things in our test beyond needs of apps known to us. Some of my tests test things even though I had no application that really needed it. So I prefer to document things I come accross, even if I can't see an immediate use, and will most likely never have a use. You never know what the future brings.
I do not claim that I have a scheme when writing tests for unused functions or not doing so, it mainly depends on wether I'm in the moot of writing a test :-)
-
H. Verbeet -
Stefan Dösinger