Ge van Geldorp wrote:
Try 2: use win_skip() instead of skip()
Changelog: secur32/tests: Fix GetUserNameEx() tests
dlls/secur32/tests/secur32.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- 1 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
Hi Ge,
Why did you remove:
- if (0) /* Crashes on Windows */ - rc = pGetUserNameExW(NameSamCompatible, NULL, NULL); -
The point of these additions was to show/document that Windows crashes when called like this.
Hi Paul,
From: Paul Vriens
Why did you remove:
- if (0) /* Crashes on Windows */
rc = pGetUserNameExW(NameSamCompatible, NULL, NULL);The point of these additions was to show/document that Windows crashes when called like this.
Because Alexandre told me for an earlier patch to remove tests that crash on Windows: http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2009-January/072010.html
Ge.
Ge van Geldorp wrote:
Hi Paul,
From: Paul Vriens
Why did you remove:
- if (0) /* Crashes on Windows */
rc = pGetUserNameExW(NameSamCompatible, NULL, NULL);The point of these additions was to show/document that Windows crashes when called like this.
Because Alexandre told me for an earlier patch to remove tests that crash on Windows: http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2009-January/072010.html
Ge.
But that refers to a function that is said to be broken on Windows.
I've added these to the tests to show that Windows crashes. This is thus a test (although not run) for behavior. It just means that Windows doesn't check the input parameters thoroughly and so we shouldn't either. It was trigerred by Coverity that reported a possible dereference on a NULL parameter.
Hi Paul,
From: Paul Vriens [mailto:paul.vriens.wine@gmail.com]
I've added these to the tests to show that Windows crashes. This is thus a test (although not run) for behavior. It just means that Windows doesn't check the input parameters thoroughly and so we shouldn't either. It was trigerred by Coverity that reported a possible dereference on a NULL parameter.
Sorry, I hadn't noticed that you changed something between my initial version of these tests and my fixes this weekend. I'll put them back. I still don't see the difference between this and the earlier case, but I've given up on trying to find any consistency in Wine submissions anyway.
Ge.
On Tuesday 14 April 2009 12:39:51 Ge van Geldorp wrote:
Hi Ge,
Why did you remove:
- if (0) /* Crashes on Windows */
rc = pGetUserNameExW(NameSamCompatible, NULL, NULL);The point of these additions was to show/document that Windows crashes when called like this.
Because Alexandre told me for an earlier patch to remove tests that crash on Windows: http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2009-January/072010.html
What Paul meant is that as this test is behind an if(0), it's not going to be run anyway. So all it does is to serve as documentation of Windows behaviour. Arguably, this could just be a comment, ideally in the implementation of GetUserNameExW, but in general it's nice to have this sort of information.
Cheers, Kai
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 01:17:13PM +0200, Kai Blin wrote:
On Tuesday 14 April 2009 12:39:51 Ge van Geldorp wrote:
Hi Ge,
Why did you remove:
- if (0) /* Crashes on Windows */
rc = pGetUserNameExW(NameSamCompatible, NULL, NULL);
The point of these additions was to show/document that Windows crashes when called like this.
Because Alexandre told me for an earlier patch to remove tests that crash on Windows: http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2009-January/072010.html
What Paul meant is that as this test is behind an if(0), it's not going to be run anyway. So all it does is to serve as documentation of Windows behaviour. Arguably, this could just be a comment, ideally in the implementation of GetUserNameExW, but in general it's nice to have this sort of information.
Depending on the importance of the crash, surely an exception-handler-type test would document that it crashes on Windows _and_ whether it crashes or not on Wine, and catch a change in that status by either party?
-
Ge van Geldorp -
Kai Blin -
Paul TBBle Hampson -
Paul Vriens