re: cmd: ensure create_full_path returns FALSE for all errors

[Dan Kegel]

Please add a test case, too.

cmd: ensure create_full_path returns FALSE for all errors

[Frédéric Delanoy]

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 19:27, Dan Kegel  wrote:
> Please add a test case, too.

OK. Do I need a testbot account as well?

cmd: ensure create_full_path returns FALSE for all errors

[Dan Kegel]

2011/6/4 Frédéric Delanoy :
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 19:27, Dan Kegel  wrote:
> > Please add a test case, too.
>
> OK. Do I need a testbot account as well?

Yeah.  The cmd test suite is touchy, so
it's worth it to use testbot to verify your
test before you send it to wine-patches.

I threw an example test case together for you.
A quick run on xp seems to indicate you also need to set errorlevel,
so I added that.   See the patch attached to
https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=11484
It passes on all tested platforms.  Feel free to
submit along with your patch verbatim if it looks
sufficient to you.

(Oddly, windows xp's cmd doesn't seem to set errorlevel
if you use rmdir on a nonexistent directory...)
- Dan

cmd: ensure create_full_path returns FALSE for all errors

[Dan Kegel]

2011/6/4 Dan Kegel :
> https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=11484
> It passes on all tested platforms.  Feel free to
> submit along with your patch verbatim if it looks
> sufficient to you.

BTW it looks like cmd test suite completely ignores
stderr, which explains why that test passes even though
the error message produced by wine's cmd and native cmd
are different.

cmd: ensure create_full_path returns FALSE for all errors

[Frédéric Delanoy]

2011/6/4 Dan Kegel :
> 2011/6/4 Dan Kegel :
> > https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=11484
> > It passes on all tested platforms.  Feel free to
> > submit along with your patch verbatim if it looks
> > sufficient to you.
>
> BTW it looks like cmd test suite completely ignores
> stderr, which explains why that test passes even though
> the error message produced by wine's cmd and native cmd
> are different.

BTW, there's a
+rem warning, don't run any tests that depend on %ErrorLevel% after this line
in your patch

Is there really no way to reset ErrorLevel to a sane value?

IMHO it makes more sense to use tests using ErrorLevel *after* its
correct behaviour has been demonstrated, if possible...

cmd: ensure create_full_path returns FALSE for all errors

[Dan Kegel]

2011/6/4 Frédéric Delanoy :
> BTW, there's a
> +rem warning, don't run any tests that depend on %ErrorLevel% after this line
> in your patch
>
> Is there really no way to reset ErrorLevel to a sane value?

It's more subtle than that.  That section of code checks what
happens when you try to set an environment variable named
ErrorLevel, which is kind of a no-no; real world batch files
shouldn't be doing that, as it doesn't do what one expects.
> IMHO it makes more sense to use tests using ErrorLevel *after* its
> correct behaviour has been demonstrated, if possible...

Order should not be important, IMHO.  We ought to be running
each of those sections in its own little cmd session.  That
would prevent test failures from cascading into the next section.
- Dan

cmd: ensure create_full_path returns FALSE for all errors

[Frédéric Delanoy]

2011/6/4 Dan Kegel :
> (Oddly, windows xp's cmd doesn't seem to set errorlevel
> if you use rmdir on a nonexistent directory...)

Yep. Exactly the same in w2k... yet another Windows oddity...