msvcrt _tempnam and tests

[Phil Lodwick]

I submitted a patch yesterday for the implementation of _tempnam in msvcrt.
Today I started to write a conformance test which has led to several
questions.

1) What action should we take if MS documentation and the implementation do
not agree?

a) leave out the test
    b) test to implementation

2) If a function takes several parameters, do you test all permutations, or
just the ones you feel are important?

3) This question is specific to the implementation of _tempnam.  The current
implementation just calls GetTempFileNameA.  My first attempt at a patch made
things better by calling GetTempFileNameA with better parameters.  After
writing the conformance test, however, I see that calling GetTempFileNameA is
just plain wrong -- for at least two reasons:

a) GetTempFileNameA truncates prefix to 3 characters, _tempnam does
not
    b) GetTempFileNameA adds a ".tmp" extension, _tempnam does not.

Do we just duplicate and modify the kernel TempFileNameA code in msvcrt?

Thanks,
Phil

[Dimi Paun]

From: "Phil Lodwick"
> - What action should we take if MS documentation and the implementation

do
> not agree?

just test to implementation.
> - If a function takes several parameters, do you test all permutations,

or
> just the ones you feel are important?

As much as possible, within reason. I guess this means "the ones you
feel are important" :)
> - This question is specific to the implementation of _tempnam.  The

current
> implementation just calls GetTempFileNameA.  My first attempt at a patch

made
> things better by calling GetTempFileNameA with better parameters.  After
> writing the conformance test, however, I see that calling GetTempFileNameA

is
> just plain wrong -- for at least two reasons:

Yeah, just duplicate TempFileNameA code in msvcrt, and change it
accordingly.

[Uwe Bonnes]

> > > > > "Phil" == Phil Lodwick  writes:

Phil> I submitted a patch yesterday for the implementation of _tempnam
    Phil> in msvcrt.  Today I started to write a conformance test which has
    Phil> led to several questions.

Phil> 1) What action should we take if MS documentation and the
    Phil> implementation do not agree?

Phil> 	a) leave out the test b) test to implementation

If a program relies on undocumented features or windows behaving another was
as documented, try to extract that case and code a case for the test
suite. Test that the test tests the right thing on as many windows versions
as possible, at least XP or NT2K3. Win95 is not so high on our list.
If the test is right, submit it for inclusion.

If the undocumented feature is only found by poking around, without any
program found to rely on it, only write a comment.

Phil> 2) If a function takes several parameters, do you test all
    Phil> permutations, or just the ones you feel are important?

If your implementation path for the different options is clearly distincted,
permuations are not that nescessary. But if the code pathes interweave, test
more.
At test what you feel important and what applications rely on.

Phil> 3) This question is specific to the implementation of _tempnam.
    Phil> The current implementation just calls GetTempFileNameA.  My first
    Phil> attempt at a patch made things better by calling GetTempFileNameA
    Phil> with better parameters.  After writing the conformance test,
    Phil> however, I see that calling GetTempFileNameA is just plain wrong
    Phil> -- for at least two reasons:

Phil> 	a) GetTempFileNameA truncates prefix to 3 characters,
    Phil> _tempnam does not b) GetTempFileNameA adds a ".tmp" extension,
    Phil> _tempnam does not.

Phil> Do we just duplicate and modify the kernel TempFileNameA code in
    Phil> msvcrt?

Use the source :-)

Bye