Paul Vriens Paul.Vriens@xs4all.nl writes:
Some original tests still fail for NT4, haven't looked into that (yet).
Changelog Fix returncodes for NtOpenKey (with tests)
This breaks the advapi32 tests:
../../../tools/runtest -q -P wine -M advapi32.dll -T ../../.. -p advapi32_test.exe.so registry.c && touch registry.ok registry.c:553: Test failed: expected ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER, got 998
On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 12:58 +0200, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Paul Vriens Paul.Vriens@xs4all.nl writes:
Some original tests still fail for NT4, haven't looked into that (yet).
Changelog Fix returncodes for NtOpenKey (with tests)
This breaks the advapi32 tests:
../../../tools/runtest -q -P wine -M advapi32.dll -T ../../.. -p advapi32_test.exe.so registry.c && touch registry.ok registry.c:553: Test failed: expected ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER, got 998
The tests for NtOpenKey succeed. As RegOpenKeyA (RegOpenKeyExA) calls NtOpenKey does that mean return values should differ between the two?
Paul.
On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 13:10 +0200, Paul Vriens wrote:
On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 12:58 +0200, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Paul Vriens Paul.Vriens@xs4all.nl writes:
Some original tests still fail for NT4, haven't looked into that (yet).
Changelog Fix returncodes for NtOpenKey (with tests)
This breaks the advapi32 tests:
../../../tools/runtest -q -P wine -M advapi32.dll -T ../../.. -p advapi32_test.exe.so registry.c && touch registry.ok registry.c:553: Test failed: expected ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER, got 998
The tests for NtOpenKey succeed. As RegOpenKeyA (RegOpenKeyExA) calls NtOpenKey does that mean return values should differ between the two?
Paul.
Just sent in a fix and tests for RegOpenKeyA. It looks like RegOpenKeyA is checking some stuff for itself.
Changing NtOpenKey as done in this patch, also passes the new (and existing) tests for advapi32.
Cheers,
Paul.
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Paul Vriens