[MSI/tests] ConvertSidToStringSid not available on win98/NT4

[Paul Vriens]

Hi,

ConvertSidToStringSid (advapi32) is not available on win98/NT4 so the msi tests 
(all of them) do not run on those platforms currently.

I could use skip but that basically would mean no MsiQueryProductState, 
MsiQueryFeatureState and MsiQueryComponentState tests.

Another thing is to copy over the ConvertSidToStringSid implementation from 
advapi32 to the relevant tests.

Any other ideas (or better yet, solutions)?

Cheers,

Paul.

[Jakob Eriksson]

Paul Vriens wrote:
> Hi,
>
> ConvertSidToStringSid (advapi32) is not available on win98/NT4 so the
> msi tests (all of them) do not run on those platforms currently.
>
> I could use skip but that basically would mean no
> MsiQueryProductState, MsiQueryFeatureState and MsiQueryComponentState
> tests.
>
> Another thing is to copy over the ConvertSidToStringSid implementation
> from advapi32 to the relevant tests.
>
> Any other ideas (or better yet, solutions)?

My $.05 ; I would like to see the NT4 column all green some day, because
NT4 ended as a very stable and useful version of Windows.
If we can't even verify we support NT4 functionality with Wine, how far
have we really come?

(I know Wine is supposed to "run win32 applications", not "emulate a
Windows version", but still...)

regards,
Jakob

[Kai Blin]

On Thursday 09 August 2007 18:01:47 Jakob Eriksson wrote:
> My $.05 ; I would like to see the NT4 column all green some day, because
> NT4 ended as a very stable and useful version of Windows.
> If we can't even verify we support NT4 functionality with Wine, how far
> have we really come?

That won't happen. E.g. I plan to eventually have Kerberos support in 
secur32.dll. NT4 doesn't do that. So whatever you do that's Win2k or beyond 
won't work on older Windows versions. That doesn't mean the test is bad. It 
also doesn't mean Wine can't run NT applications.

I don't see how exactly having all test work on NT4 will make Wine better.
Kai

[Jakob Eriksson]

Kai Blin wrote:
> On Thursday 09 August 2007 18:01:47 Jakob Eriksson wrote:
> > My $.05 ; I would like to see the NT4 column all green some day, because
> > NT4 ended as a very stable and useful version of Windows.
> > If we can't even verify we support NT4 functionality with Wine, how far
> > have we really come?
>
> That won't happen. E.g. I plan to eventually have Kerberos support in 
> secur32.dll. NT4 doesn't do that. So whatever you do that's Win2k or beyond 
> won't work on older Windows versions. That doesn't mean the test is bad. It 
> also doesn't mean Wine can't run NT applications.
>
> I don't see how exactly having all test work on NT4 will make Wine better.

Thats not exactly what I meant, I think. This Kerberos support comes
from extra functions
in secur32.dll right? The tests then will notice that there is no
Kerberos support and not
run Kerberos tests. Am I mistaken?

Ahh.. :-)

I did not mean a column with all green, but a column with no red. Quite
a difference.
Is that possible to achieve?

regards,
Jakob

[Paul Vriens]

Jakob Eriksson wrote:
> Kai Blin wrote:
> > On Thursday 09 August 2007 18:01:47 Jakob Eriksson wrote:
> > > My $.05 ; I would like to see the NT4 column all green some day, because
> > > NT4 ended as a very stable and useful version of Windows.
> > > If we can't even verify we support NT4 functionality with Wine, how far
> > > have we really come?
> >
> > That won't happen. E.g. I plan to eventually have Kerberos support in 
> > secur32.dll. NT4 doesn't do that. So whatever you do that's Win2k or beyond 
> > won't work on older Windows versions. That doesn't mean the test is bad. It 
> > also doesn't mean Wine can't run NT applications.
> >
> > I don't see how exactly having all test work on NT4 will make Wine better.
>
> Thats not exactly what I meant, I think. This Kerberos support comes
> from extra functions
> in secur32.dll right? The tests then will notice that there is no
> Kerberos support and not
> run Kerberos tests. Am I mistaken?
>
> Ahh.. :-)
>
> I did not mean a column with all green, but a column with no red. Quite
> a difference.
> Is that possible to achieve?
>
> regards,
> Jakob

And that what I'm trying to get at as well. A test results page which is not red 
(and probably with a huge number of blue markings).

Getting there is just like implementing the win32 api (chasing a running 
target). Tests change all the time. And people who implement new features use of 
course (?) winxp or higher to test.

Which brings me to anther question. When are we defaulting to winxp? The test 
results look a bit better on xp than win2k. This doesn't mean of course we are 
doing better (haven't looked at the todo_wine's in the tests).

Cheers,

Paul.

[Juan Lang]

> Thats not exactly what I meant, I think. This Kerberos support comes
> from extra functions
> in secur32.dll right? The tests then will notice that there is no
> Kerberos support and not
> run Kerberos tests. Am I mistaken?

You are mistaken.  The same functions exist in Windows NT4 (they're in
security.dll rather than secur32.dll, but the exports are the same.)
You ask for a provider by name, and the Kerberos provider exists in
Windows 2000 and up, but not in NT4.

That doesn't mean that the tests couldn't use skip if Kerberos isn't available.
--Juan