Re: kernel[2/2]: fix path test to pass on 95 and 98

[Alexandre Julliard]

Andrew Ziem  writes:
> --- dlls/kernel/tests/path1.c	2006-05-14 23:32:47.000000000 -0600
> +++ dlls/kernel/tests/path.c	2006-05-15 08:08:52.000000000 -0600
> @@ -339,14 +339,22 @@
>       newdir,tmpstr,tmpstr1,id);
>    ok(DeleteFileA(newdir),"Couldn't delete the temporary file we just created\n");
> - ok((id=GetTempFileNameA(tmppath,NULL,0,newdir)),"GetTempFileNameA failed\n");
> - sprintf(tmpstr,"%.4x.tmp",id & 0xffff);
> - sprintf(tmpstr1,"%x.tmp",id & 0xffff);
> - ok(lstrcmpiA(newdir+lstrlenA(tmppath),tmpstr)==0 ||
> -
> lstrcmpiA(newdir+lstrlenA(tmppath),tmpstr1)==0,
> -
> "GetTempFileNameA returned '%s' which doesn't match '%s' or '%s'. id=%x\n",
> -
> newdir,tmpstr,tmpstr1,id);
> - ok(DeleteFileA(newdir),"Couldn't delete the temporary file we just created\n");
> - if (GetVersion() & 0x80000000) {

You should never add version checks in tests, simply check for both
behaviors.

kernel[2/2]: fix path test to pass on 95 and 98

[Andrew Ziem]

Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Andrew Ziem  writes:
> > --- dlls/kernel/tests/path1.c	2006-05-14 23:32:47.000000000 -0600
> > +++ dlls/kernel/tests/path.c	2006-05-15 08:08:52.000000000 -0600
> > @@ -339,14 +339,22 @@
> >       newdir,tmpstr,tmpstr1,id);
> >    ok(DeleteFileA(newdir),"Couldn't delete the temporary file we just created\n");
> > - ok((id=GetTempFileNameA(tmppath,NULL,0,newdir)),"GetTempFileNameA failed\n");
> > - sprintf(tmpstr,"%.4x.tmp",id & 0xffff);
> > - sprintf(tmpstr1,"%x.tmp",id & 0xffff);
> > - ok(lstrcmpiA(newdir+lstrlenA(tmppath),tmpstr)==0 ||
> > -
> > lstrcmpiA(newdir+lstrlenA(tmppath),tmpstr1)==0,
> > -
> > "GetTempFileNameA returned '%s' which doesn't match '%s' or '%s'. id=%x\n",
> > -
> > newdir,tmpstr,tmpstr1,id);
> > - ok(DeleteFileA(newdir),"Couldn't delete the temporary file we just created\n");
> > - if (GetVersion() & 0x80000000) {
>
> You should never add version checks in tests, simply check for both
> behaviors.

Thanks for the reply.   Now, since some behavior is mutually exclusive, 
that implies the wine tests will never see 0 total failures?   When 
writing this patch, I was trying to see what I could I could do to see 
more green zeros in the reports: http://test.winehq.org/data/200605151000/

Also,  I sort of copied the GetVersion() part from existing tests.  For 
example:

$ grep GetVersion dlls/*/tests/*.c | wc -l
31

Andrew

kernel[2/2]: fix path test to pass on 95 and 98

[Alexandre Julliard]

Andrew Ziem  writes:
> Thanks for the reply.   Now, since some behavior is mutually
> exclusive, that implies the wine tests will never see 0 total
> failures?

No, it means that the test should accept both cases, since both are
valid behaviors of the Windows API. You can replace the ok() by a
simple if(), and continue with testing the buffer in the success
case.
> Also,  I sort of copied the GetVersion() part from existing tests.
> For example:
>
> $ grep GetVersion dlls/*/tests/*.c | wc -l
> 31

Most of these aren't actually GetVersion calls. There are a few,
mostly in places where real apps do the same checks, so that we need
to mimick that behavior.