shell32, ntdll tests

[Aaron Arvey]

Is anyone currently working (or have feedback) on tests for
ntdll/loader.c, ntdll/virtual.c, shell32/folder.c, shell32/shlexec.c, or
shell32/shell_main.c?

More specifically, is it worth the time to write tests for ntdll/loader.c
and ntdll/virtual.c?  It seems that these files would be used to load any
program, so if there were any bugs, I'm guessing they would become
apparent immediately and thus having formal tests would be somewhat
pointless.  Please correct (or reaffirm) me as I am going to write some
tests in my spare time and I want to make sure that they'd be useful to
the wine project.

I'm looking at these specific files because they have code which is run by
google's picasa 2, but not by the wine test suite.

Thanks!

Aaron

[James Hawkins]

On Apr 11, 2005 4:34 PM, Aaron Arvey  wrote:
> More specifically, is it worth the time to write tests for ntdll/loader.c
> and ntdll/virtual.c?  It seems that these files would be used to load any
> program, so if there were any bugs, I'm guessing they would become
> apparent immediately and thus having formal tests would be somewhat
> pointless.  Please correct (or reaffirm) me as I am going to write some
> tests in my spare time and I want to make sure that they'd be useful to
> the wine project.

Regression/conformance tests are almost never pointless even if they
just reaffirm what is already obvious.  They serve two purposes: to
conform to windows behaviour, and to make sure later code changes
don't create regressions.  It would be well worth all of our time for
anyone to write more tests, so please send them in.