[PATCH 1/3] windowscodecs/tests: Add more tests for DdsFrameDecode_Dds_CopyBlocks().

[Ziqing Hui]

Signed-off-by: Ziqing Hui 
---
 dlls/windowscodecs/tests/ddsformat.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

[Ziqing Hui]

There is one thing wired.

This patch uses todo_wine like this:

todo_wine ok(...);

todo_wine ok(...);

todo_wine ok(...);

And everything is fine on testbot.

However, if I change todo_wine to form like this:

todo_wine {

ok(...);

ok(...);

ok(...);

};

Then the patch will fail on testbot. See: https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=72824

As shown in the test result, the testjob fails on debiant machine (Also fails on my Linux mint machine). There are many "Test succeeded inside todo block" test failure.

But these failed lines are not included in "todo_wine {}" block. I don't know why these lines result in "Test succeeded inside todo block" test failure.

The only difference between this patch and the failed patch (https://testbot.winehq.org/GetFile.pl?JobKey=72824&StepKey=1) is the form of todo_wine.

I'm not able to figure out why it happens. Does any one can help me please?

On 6/5/20 11:53 AM, Ziqing Hui wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Ziqing Hui
>
> dlls/windowscodecs/tests/ddsformat.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

[Zebediah Figura]

On 6/4/20 11:33 PM, Ziqing Hui wrote:
> There is one thing wired.
>
> This patch uses todo_wine like this:
> todo_wine ok(...);
>
> todo_wine ok(...);
>
> todo_wine ok(...);
>
> And everything is fine on testbot.
>
> However, if I change todo_wine to form like this:
> todo_wine {
>
>      ok(...);
>
>      ok(...);
>
>      ok(...);
>
> };
>
> Then the patch will fail on testbot. See: 
> https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=72824
>
> As shown in the test result, the testjob fails on debiant machine (Also 
> fails on my Linux mint machine). There are many "Test succeeded inside 
> todo block" test failure.
>
> But these failed lines are not included in "todo_wine {}" block. I don't 
> know why these lines result in "Test succeeded inside todo block" test 
> failure.
>
> The only difference between this patch and the failed patch 
> (https://testbot.winehq.org/GetFile.pl?JobKey=72824&StepKey=1) is the 
> form of todo_wine.
>
> I'm not able to figure out why it happens. Does any one can help me please?

I think things will break if you return from the middle of a todo_wine. 
It's implemented as a for loop.

[Ziqing Hui]

OK, I think I understand. Thanks, Zebediah!

On 6/5/20 12:34 PM, Zebediah Figura wrote:
> On 6/4/20 11:33 PM, Ziqing Hui wrote:
> > There is one thing wired.
> >
> > This patch uses todo_wine like this:
> >
> > todo_wine ok(...);
> >
> > todo_wine ok(...);
> >
> > todo_wine ok(...);
> >
> > And everything is fine on testbot.
> >
> > However, if I change todo_wine to form like this:
> >
> > todo_wine {
> >
> > ok(...);
> >
> > ok(...);
> >
> > ok(...);
> >
> > };
> >
> > Then the patch will fail on testbot. See: https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=72824
> >
> > As shown in the test result, the testjob fails on debiant machine (Also fails on my Linux mint machine). There are many "Test succeeded inside todo block" test failure.
> >
> > But these failed lines are not included in "todo_wine {}" block. I don't know why these lines result in "Test succeeded inside todo block" test failure.
> >
> > The only difference between this patch and the failed patch (https://testbot.winehq.org/GetFile.pl?JobKey=72824&StepKey=1) is the form of todo_wine.
> >
> > I'm not able to figure out why it happens. Does any one can help me please?
>
> I think things will break if you return from the middle of a todo_wine. It's implemented as a for loop.

[Esme Povirk (they/them)]

Signed-off-by: Esme Povirk