Hi,
While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures. Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be wrong, but could you please double-check? Full results can be found at http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=4540
Your paranoid android.
=== W98SE (32 bit gameexplorer) === Failure running script in VM: Exceeded timeout limit of 315 sec
=== W2KPROSP4 (32 bit gameexplorer) === Timeout
=== WXPPROSP3 (32 bit gameexplorer) === Timeout
W dniu 18.08.2010 17:49, (Marvin) pisze:
Hi,
While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures. Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be wrong, but could you please double-check? Full results can be found at http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=4540
Your paranoid android.
=== W98SE (32 bit gameexplorer) === Failure running script in VM: Exceeded timeout limit of 315 sec
=== W2KPROSP4 (32 bit gameexplorer) === Timeout
=== WXPPROSP3 (32 bit gameexplorer) === Timeout
This result is strange, cause routine modified by this patch (called test_add_remove_game ) is not even called on these operating systems - and test added by my previous patch demonstrates it (and it succeeded). Did I something wrong? I cannot imagine how it could fail when previous test was succeeded.
The testbot gives weird results at times. I wouldn't worry about it.
2010/8/18 Mariusz Pluciński vshader@gmail.com:
W dniu 18.08.2010 17:49, (Marvin) pisze:
Hi,
While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures. Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be wrong, but could you please double-check? Full results can be found at http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=4540
Your paranoid android.
=== W98SE (32 bit gameexplorer) === Failure running script in VM: Exceeded timeout limit of 315 sec
=== W2KPROSP4 (32 bit gameexplorer) === Timeout
=== WXPPROSP3 (32 bit gameexplorer) === Timeout
This result is strange, cause routine modified by this patch (called test_add_remove_game ) is not even called on these operating systems - and test added by my previous patch demonstrates it (and it succeeded). Did I something wrong? I cannot imagine how it could fail when previous test was succeeded.
This result is strange, cause routine modified by this patch (called test_add_remove_game ) is not even called on these operating systems - and test added by my previous patch demonstrates it (and it succeeded). Did I something wrong? I cannot imagine how it could fail when previous test was succeeded.
You can see the error message dialog in the screenshots on the testbot result webpage. In this case, you've got missing exports, ConvertSidToSidStringW and RegGetValueW. Some solutions are to make those into function pointers (and skip appropriately if they're missing), use the A versions if they exist, or use a different function that exists on more platforms.
Andrew
You can see the error message dialog in the screenshots on the testbot result webpage. In this case, you've got missing exports, ConvertSidToSidStringW and RegGetValueW. Some solutions are to make those into function pointers (and skip appropriately if they're missing), use the A versions if they exist, or use a different function that exists on more platforms.
Oh.
Personally, I would ignore failures on operating systems < Vista, since gameux won't be present and the tests would not normally be run.
W dniu 18.08.2010 18:28, Andrew Eikum pisze:
This result is strange, cause routine modified by this patch (called test_add_remove_game ) is not even called on these operating systems - and test added by my previous patch demonstrates it (and it succeeded). Did I something wrong? I cannot imagine how it could fail when previous test was succeeded.
You can see the error message dialog in the screenshots on the testbot result webpage. In this case, you've got missing exports, ConvertSidToSidStringW and RegGetValueW. Some solutions are to make those into function pointers (and skip appropriately if they're missing), use the A versions if they exist, or use a different function that exists on more platforms.
Andrew
I understand. Thank you very much for the explanation. I did not know, that new code can interfere in any way on systems where it is never called.
W dniu 18.08.2010 18:33, Vincent Povirk pisze:
Oh.
Personally, I would ignore failures on operating systems< Vista, since gameux won't be present and the tests would not normally be run.
OK, I'll see if my patch is accepted despite of these results. If not, I'll modify it, to make it calling these routines through pointers.
-
Andrew Eikum -
Mariusz Pluciński -
testbot＠testbot.winehq.org -
Vincent Povirk