On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 10:06 AM, James Hawkins jhawkins@codeweavers.com wrote:
Hi,
Changelog:
- Fix a failing test in win95.
dlls/secur32/tests/main.c | 3 ++- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
-- James Hawkins
But if the result is SEC_E_UNSUPPORTED_FUNCTION it's not broken is it?
Shouldn't we use some kind of skip here? (The end result will be the same, as we should use win_skip, it just doesn't look correct).
Cheers,
Paul.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 5:30 AM, Paul Vriens paul.vriens.wine@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 10:06 AM, James Hawkins jhawkins@codeweavers.com wrote:
Hi,
Changelog:
- Fix a failing test in win95.
dlls/secur32/tests/main.c | 3 ++- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
-- James Hawkins
But if the result is SEC_E_UNSUPPORTED_FUNCTION it's not broken is it?
Do you think returning SEC_E_UNSUPPORTED_FUNCTION is acceptable behavior for Wine?
Shouldn't we use some kind of skip here? (The end result will be the same, as we should use win_skip, it just doesn't look correct).
There's really no point.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 12:47 PM, James Hawkins jhawkins@codeweavers.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 5:30 AM, Paul Vriens paul.vriens.wine@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 10:06 AM, James Hawkins jhawkins@codeweavers.com wrote:
Hi,
Changelog:
- Fix a failing test in win95.
dlls/secur32/tests/main.c | 3 ++- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
-- James Hawkins
But if the result is SEC_E_UNSUPPORTED_FUNCTION it's not broken is it?
Do you think returning SEC_E_UNSUPPORTED_FUNCTION is acceptable behavior for Wine?
No of course not. But we tend to use broken() if we think a certain windows platform is well uh, broken. And we use skip() if it's accepted behavior.
Cheers,
Paul.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 6:23 AM, Paul Vriens paul.vriens.wine@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 12:47 PM, James Hawkins jhawkins@codeweavers.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 5:30 AM, Paul Vriens paul.vriens.wine@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 10:06 AM, James Hawkins jhawkins@codeweavers.com wrote:
Hi,
Changelog:
- Fix a failing test in win95.
dlls/secur32/tests/main.c | 3 ++- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
-- James Hawkins
But if the result is SEC_E_UNSUPPORTED_FUNCTION it's not broken is it?
Do you think returning SEC_E_UNSUPPORTED_FUNCTION is acceptable behavior for Wine?
No of course not. But we tend to use broken() if we think a certain windows platform is well uh, broken. And we use skip() if it's accepted behavior.
You use skip so that you don't have to add (potentially) hundreds of broken statements. I didn't want to clutter it up with a skip that was already happening, if only in another way.
-
James Hawkins -
Paul Vriens