Re: ntdll/tests: Add tests for job objects. (try 2)

[Frédéric Delanoy]

On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 5:41 AM, Andrew Cook  wrote:
> dlls/ntdll/tests/Makefile.in |   1 +
>  dlls/ntdll/tests/job.c       | 151
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  include/winnt.h              |   5 ++
>  3 files changed, 157 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 dlls/ntdll/tests/job.c

+    if(pNtIsProcessInJob)
+        todo_wine todo_wine ok(pNtIsProcessInJob(pi[0].hProcess,
JobObject) == STATUS_PROCESS_NOT_IN_JOB,
+            "NtIsProcessInJob: expected STATUS_PROCESS_NOT_IN_JOB,
got %x\n", ret);

Is that double todo_wine intended? It seems weird...

ntdll/tests: Add tests for job objects. (try 2)

[Andrew Cook]

On 06/09/13 17:12, Frédéric Delanoy wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 5:41 AM, Andrew Cook  wrote:
> > dlls/ntdll/tests/Makefile.in |   1 +
> >  dlls/ntdll/tests/job.c       | 151
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  include/winnt.h              |   5 ++
> >  3 files changed, 157 insertions(+)
> >  create mode 100644 dlls/ntdll/tests/job.c
> - if(pNtIsProcessInJob)
> -
>    todo_wine todo_wine ok(pNtIsProcessInJob(pi[0].hProcess,
>
> JobObject) == STATUS_PROCESS_NOT_IN_JOB,
> -
>        "NtIsProcessInJob: expected STATUS_PROCESS_NOT_IN_JOB,
>
> got %x\n", ret);
>
> Is that double todo_wine intended? It seems weird...

I have no idea how i missed that.

probably better this patch is disregarded, i've sent an equivalent set
of tests for kernel32.