Re: Make dlls-kernel-tests-file.c work on Windows 95 and XP.

[Alexandre Julliard]

Jakob Eriksson  writes:
> +static int test_win9x_based()
> +{
> - OSVERSIONINFOEX ver;
> -
> - ver.dwOSVersionInfoSize = sizeof(OSVERSIONINFO);
> - ok( GetVersionEx ((OSVERSIONINFO *) &ver), " --- Can't get OS version.\n" );
> - if ((4 == ver.dwMajorVersion && 0 == ver.dwMinorVersion && 1381 == ver.dwBuildNumber)
> -
>    || ver.dwMajorVersion >= 5)
> - {
> -
>    return 0;
> - }
> -
> - return 1;

You should not do version checks in tests, the checks should be based
on the features we are testing. Otherwise the results are going to
depend on the Windows version that Wine is configured for, which is
the wrong thing to do since the behavior of the Wine code in that case
does not depend on the version.

Call for console and process tests help (Was: Re: Make dlls-kernel-tests-file.c work on Windows 95 and XP.)

[Jakob Eriksson]

Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Jakob Eriksson  writes:
> > +static int test_win9x_based()
> > +{
> > - OSVERSIONINFOEX ver;
> > -
> > - ver.dwOSVersionInfoSize = sizeof(OSVERSIONINFO);
> > - ok( GetVersionEx ((OSVERSIONINFO *) &ver), " --- Can't get OS version.\n" );
> > - if ((4 == ver.dwMajorVersion && 0 == ver.dwMinorVersion && 1381 == ver.dwBuildNumber)
> > -
> >    || ver.dwMajorVersion >= 5)
> > - {
> > -
> >    return 0;
> > - }
> > -
> > - return 1;
>
> You should not do version checks in tests, the checks should be based
> on the features we are testing. Otherwise the results are going to
> depend on the Windows version that Wine is configured for, which is
> the wrong thing to do since the behavior of the Wine code in that case
> does not depend on the version.

Okay, I understand now.

Could somebody help me fix these tests?

The thing is, I have barely no clue how the console tests work... I will 
try to learn though.

regards,
Jakob

Make dlls-kernel-tests-file.c work on Windows 95 and XP.

[Jakob Eriksson]

Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Jakob Eriksson  writes:
> > +static int test_win9x_based()
> > +{
> > - OSVERSIONINFOEX ver;
> > -
> > - ver.dwOSVersionInfoSize = sizeof(OSVERSIONINFO);
> > - ok( GetVersionEx ((OSVERSIONINFO *) &ver), " --- Can't get OS version.\n" );
> > - if ((4 == ver.dwMajorVersion && 0 == ver.dwMinorVersion && 1381 == ver.dwBuildNumber)
> > -
> >    || ver.dwMajorVersion >= 5)
> > - {
> > -
> >    return 0;
> > - }
> > -
> > - return 1;
>
> You should not do version checks in tests, the checks should be based
> on the features we are testing. Otherwise the results are going to
> depend on the Windows version that Wine is configured for, which is
> the wrong thing to do since the behavior of the Wine code in that case
> does not depend on the version.

I just thought hard about winetest.exe... how about this approach:

if (running_under_wine || !win9x_based)
{
   /* Do stuff that would crash Windows 9x. */

/* Could also be stuff that Wine has not yet implemented */
   todo_wine { stuff(); }
}

Pros:
* Under Wine, run every test.
* Easy skip of tests under platforms we know crashes or hangs winetest.exe.

* If I am allowed to check for platform, it is easier to avoid crashing
  winetest.exe. (I.e. how do I check for capabilities on something that 
hangs
  winetest.exe when probed for capabilities?)

Cons:
Could be easy to be lazy - for instance there can be different
versions of DLLs under Windows 98, some more capable than others.
This scheme would invite to not test for capabilities.

I just want do deploy winetest.exe on as many Win32 platforms as possible
without having the app crashing all the time... Maybe that desire is leading
me to cut corners where I shouldn't?

regards,
Jakob

Make dlls-kernel-tests-file.c work on Windows 95 and XP.

[Alexandre Julliard]

Jakob Eriksson  writes:
> I just thought hard about winetest.exe... how about this approach:
>
> if (running_under_wine || !win9x_based)
> {
>    /* Do stuff that would crash Windows 9x. */
>
> /* Could also be stuff that Wine has not yet implemented */
>    todo_wine { stuff(); }
> }

If a given call crashes under Win9x then there's probably no point in
testing it that way at all, it's very unlikely that an app would
depend on that.  It would be much better to test the function in a way
that doesn't crash on any platform.