Am Sonntag, den 21.09.2008, 02:15 +0200 schrieb Erik Inge Bolsø:
- ok(1, "%s\n", content);
Please use trace(...) instead of ok(1,...). Also, outputting a string with newline characters might be irritating, especially as one might need a hex viewer to see the difference between the CR-only and CR/LF variant. You might want to have trace("test_GetPrivateProfileStringA: Run %d\n");
Instead of a run number, you also might want to pass a description like "CR only" or "CR/LF".
- ok(ret == 18, "Expected 18, got %d\n", ret);
- ok(ret == 18, "Run %d: Expected 18, got %d\n", run, ret);
Questions to everyone: I suppose if the trace above indicates the run number, these modifications are unneded. Do you agree?
Regards, Michael Karcher
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008, Michael Karcher wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 21.09.2008, 02:15 +0200 schrieb Erik Inge Bolsø:
- ok(1, "%s\n", content);
Please use trace(...) instead of ok(1,...). Also, outputting a string with newline characters might be irritating, especially as one might need a hex viewer to see the difference between the CR-only and CR/LF variant. You might want to have trace("test_GetPrivateProfileStringA: Run %d\n");
Oh, that ok is just a debugging relic of my rewrite. I meant to remove it. Nice catch.
Instead of a run number, you also might want to pass a description like "CR only" or "CR/LF".
I suppose.
- ok(ret == 18, "Expected 18, got %d\n", ret);
- ok(ret == 18, "Run %d: Expected 18, got %d\n", run, ret);
Questions to everyone: I suppose if the trace above indicates the run number, these modifications are unneded. Do you agree?
Surely it must be better to see where the error is right away, instead of having to do a +trace? Without modifying the test messages, we'll only get a line number, and no mention of which data caused the test to fail.
-- -erik http://useofwords.blogspot.com/
Am Sonntag, den 21.09.2008, 15:13 +0200 schrieb Erik Inge Bolsø:
- ok(ret == 18, "Expected 18, got %d\n", ret);
- ok(ret == 18, "Run %d: Expected 18, got %d\n", run, ret);
Questions to everyone: I suppose if the trace above indicates the run number, these modifications are unneded. Do you agree?
Surely it must be better to see where the error is right away, instead of having to do a +trace?
You are confusing TRACE (in Wine code) and trace (in Wine tests). A trace (in a Wine test) gets always printed if the test is run; it is not connected to the trace part of any of Wine's debug channels (that's where TRACE messages go to).
Without modifying the test messages, we'll only get a line number, and no mention of which data caused the test to fail.
You just look some lines upwards to the trace output. It's right next to the failure message.
Regards, Michael Karcher
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008, Michael Karcher wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 21.09.2008, 15:13 +0200 schrieb Erik Inge Bolsø:
Without modifying the test messages, we'll only get a line number, and no mention of which data caused the test to fail.
You just look some lines upwards to the trace output. It's right next to the failure message.
I see. Right, another try coming up.
-- -erik http://useofwords.blogspot.com/
-
Erik Inge Bolsø -
Michael Karcher