Re: FW: RE: My 1.0 wish list

[EA Durbin]

> From: Hans Leidekker 
> To: [e-mail]
> CC: "EA Durbin" 
> Subject: Re: FW: RE: My 1.0 wish list
> Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 09:49:47 +0200
>
> On Sunday 04 June 2006 09:08, EA Durbin wrote:
> > I wrote a quick test in wine/dlls/msi/tests/db.c to add a 2nd row to the
>
> Could you share it?
> > database that was being created, then I inserted the `id` of 8 into it
>
> and
> > then I ran the query SELECT * FROM phone where `id` > 6, and it returned
> > the correct results with `id` of 8. But in the actual wine installer
>
> code a
>
> Is the table in db.c comparable? Does it have the same fields and types?
> Also, you're using > in your select but the failing select statement has >=
> which may make a difference.
>
> -Hans

It shouldnt matter whether its >= or >, they both return the wrong results 
in the actual msi installer and the right results in db.c.

I have enclosed my tests, I tested these against the America's Army database 
installer and I have double checked the actual contents of the msi file in 
ORCA.

I've packaged up some tests and included them with this email.

Here are some queries that have returned the wrong results

SELECT * FROM `Media` WHERE `LastSequence` > 15
SELECT * FROM `File` WHERE `Sequence` > 10

SELECT * FROM `Media` WHERE `LastSequence` >= 15
SELECT * FROM `File` WHERE `Sequence` >= 10

FW: RE: My 1.0 wish list

[Hans Leidekker]

On Sunday 04 June 2006 11:01, EA Durbin wrote:
> It shouldnt matter whether its >= or >, they both return the wrong results
> in the actual msi installer and the right results in db.c.

Does this patch help?

-Hans

diff --git a/dlls/msi/cond.y b/dlls/msi/cond.y
index b32c417..47f858a 100644
--- a/dlls/msi/cond.y
+++ b/dlls/msi/cond.y
@@ -463,7 +463,7 @@ static INT compare_int( INT a, INT opera
         return a >= b;
     case COND_LE:
     case COND_ILE:
-        return a >= b;
+        return a <= b;
     case COND_SS:
     case COND_ISS:
         return ( a & b ) ? 1 : 0;

FW: RE: My 1.0 wish list

[EA Durbin]

Nice Catch!!!

But unfortunately no, it doesn't fix the problem, the test SELECT * FROM 
TABLE WHERE testcondition >= testinteger is still returning the wrong 
results.

are we using the case COND_ILE when we compare for greater than or equal to? 
Or just when less than or equal to?

or does SELECT * FROM TABLE WHERE >= or > only call IGE or IGT?
> From: Hans Leidekker 
> To: "EA Durbin" 
> CC: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: FW: RE: My 1.0 wish list
> Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 11:29:49 +0200
>
> On Sunday 04 June 2006 11:01, EA Durbin wrote:
> > It shouldnt matter whether its >= or >, they both return the wrong
>
> results
> > in the actual msi installer and the right results in db.c.
>
> Does this patch help?
>
> -Hans
>
> diff --git a/dlls/msi/cond.y b/dlls/msi/cond.y
> index b32c417..47f858a 100644
> --- a/dlls/msi/cond.y
> +++ b/dlls/msi/cond.y
> @@ -463,7 +463,7 @@ static INT compare_int( INT a, INT opera
>          return a >= b;
>      case COND_LE:
>      case COND_ILE:
> -
>    return a >= b;
> -
>    return a <= b;
> case COND_SS:
>    case COND_ISS:
>        return ( a & b ) ? 1 : 0;

FW: RE: My 1.0 wish list

[EA Durbin]

I think i might actually see the problem. Let me test it.

In  cond.tab.c the regexes are all wrong for matching the comparison tests.

{ {'~','<','=',0}, COND_IGE },

This should be parsing as

{ {'~','>','=',0}, COND_IGE },

and
        { {'~','<',0},     COND_IGT },

we're matching a less than sign, so if it is matching the "<" it runs 
COND_IGT it should be

{ {'~','>',0},     COND_IGT },
> From: "EA Durbin" 
> To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
> CC: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: FW: RE: My 1.0 wish list
> Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 11:59:25 -0500
>
> Nice Catch!!!
>
> But unfortunately no, it doesn't fix the problem, the test SELECT * FROM 
> TABLE WHERE testcondition >= testinteger is still returning the wrong 
> results.
>
> are we using the case COND_ILE when we compare for greater than or equal 
> to? Or just when less than or equal to?
>
> or does SELECT * FROM TABLE WHERE >= or > only call IGE or IGT?
> > From: Hans Leidekker 
> > To: "EA Durbin" 
> > CC: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: FW: RE: My 1.0 wish list
> > Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 11:29:49 +0200
> >
> > On Sunday 04 June 2006 11:01, EA Durbin wrote:
> > > It shouldnt matter whether its >= or >, they both return the wrong
> >
> > results
> > > in the actual msi installer and the right results in db.c.
> >
> > Does this patch help?
> >
> > -Hans
> >
> > diff --git a/dlls/msi/cond.y b/dlls/msi/cond.y
> > index b32c417..47f858a 100644
> > --- a/dlls/msi/cond.y
> > +++ b/dlls/msi/cond.y
> > @@ -463,7 +463,7 @@ static INT compare_int( INT a, INT opera
> >          return a >= b;
> >      case COND_LE:
> >      case COND_ILE:
> > -
> >    return a >= b;
> > -
> >    return a <= b;
> > case COND_SS:
> >    case COND_ISS:
> >        return ( a & b ) ? 1 : 0;

FW: RE: My 1.0 wish list

[EA Durbin]

Why when i edit the code to change this, does it revert back when i compile 
it?
> From: "EA Durbin" 
> To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
> CC: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: FW: RE: My 1.0 wish list
> Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 12:12:18 -0500
>
> I think i might actually see the problem. Let me test it.
>
> In  cond.tab.c the regexes are all wrong for matching the comparison tests.
>
> { {'~','<','=',0}, COND_IGE },
>
> This should be parsing as
>
> { {'~','>','=',0}, COND_IGE },
>
> and
>        { {'~','<',0},     COND_IGT },
>
> we're matching a less than sign, so if it is matching the "<" it runs 
> COND_IGT it should be
>    { {'~','>',0},     COND_IGT },
>
> > From: "EA Durbin" 
> > To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
> > CC: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: FW: RE: My 1.0 wish list
> > Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 11:59:25 -0500
> >
> > Nice Catch!!!
> >
> > But unfortunately no, it doesn't fix the problem, the test SELECT * FROM 
> > TABLE WHERE testcondition >= testinteger is still returning the wrong 
> > results.
> >
> > are we using the case COND_ILE when we compare for greater than or equal 
> > to? Or just when less than or equal to?
> >
> > or does SELECT * FROM TABLE WHERE >= or > only call IGE or IGT?
> > > From: Hans Leidekker 
> > > To: "EA Durbin" 
> > > CC: [e-mail]
> > > Subject: Re: FW: RE: My 1.0 wish list
> > > Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 11:29:49 +0200
> > >
> > > On Sunday 04 June 2006 11:01, EA Durbin wrote:
> > > > It shouldnt matter whether its >= or >, they both return the wrong
> > >
> > > results
> > > > in the actual msi installer and the right results in db.c.
> > >
> > > Does this patch help?
> > >
> > > -Hans
> > >
> > > diff --git a/dlls/msi/cond.y b/dlls/msi/cond.y
> > > index b32c417..47f858a 100644
> > > --- a/dlls/msi/cond.y
> > > +++ b/dlls/msi/cond.y
> > > @@ -463,7 +463,7 @@ static INT compare_int( INT a, INT opera
> > >          return a >= b;
> > >      case COND_LE:
> > >      case COND_ILE:
> > > -
> > >    return a >= b;
> > > -
> > >    return a <= b;
> > > case COND_SS:
> > >    case COND_ISS:
> > >        return ( a & b ) ? 1 : 0;

FW: RE: My 1.0 wish list

[EA Durbin]

disregard that last stupid question, I looked at the Makefile. Like i said 
I'm not a C hacker, had to edit cond.y and not cond.tab.c.
> From: "EA Durbin" 
> To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
> CC: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: FW: RE: My 1.0 wish list
> Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 12:49:41 -0500
>
> Why when i edit the code to change this, does it revert back when i compile 
> it?
> > From: "EA Durbin" 
> > To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
> > CC: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: FW: RE: My 1.0 wish list
> > Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 12:12:18 -0500
> >
> > I think i might actually see the problem. Let me test it.
> >
> > In  cond.tab.c the regexes are all wrong for matching the comparison 
> > tests.
> >
> > { {'~','<','=',0}, COND_IGE },
> >
> > This should be parsing as
> >
> > { {'~','>','=',0}, COND_IGE },
> >
> > and
> >        { {'~','<',0},     COND_IGT },
> >
> > we're matching a less than sign, so if it is matching the "<" it runs 
> > COND_IGT it should be
> >    { {'~','>',0},     COND_IGT },
> >
> > > From: "EA Durbin" 
> > > To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
> > > CC: [e-mail]
> > > Subject: Re: FW: RE: My 1.0 wish list
> > > Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 11:59:25 -0500
> > >
> > > Nice Catch!!!
> > >
> > > But unfortunately no, it doesn't fix the problem, the test SELECT * FROM 
> > > TABLE WHERE testcondition >= testinteger is still returning the wrong 
> > > results.
> > >
> > > are we using the case COND_ILE when we compare for greater than or equal 
> > > to? Or just when less than or equal to?
> > >
> > > or does SELECT * FROM TABLE WHERE >= or > only call IGE or IGT?
> > > > From: Hans Leidekker 
> > > > To: "EA Durbin" 
> > > > CC: [e-mail]
> > > > Subject: Re: FW: RE: My 1.0 wish list
> > > > Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 11:29:49 +0200
> > > >
> > > > On Sunday 04 June 2006 11:01, EA Durbin wrote:
> > > > > It shouldnt matter whether its >= or >, they both return the wrong
> > > >
> > > > results
> > > > > in the actual msi installer and the right results in db.c.
> > > >
> > > > Does this patch help?
> > > >
> > > > -Hans
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/dlls/msi/cond.y b/dlls/msi/cond.y
> > > > index b32c417..47f858a 100644
> > > > --- a/dlls/msi/cond.y
> > > > +++ b/dlls/msi/cond.y
> > > > @@ -463,7 +463,7 @@ static INT compare_int( INT a, INT opera
> > > >          return a >= b;
> > > >      case COND_LE:
> > > >      case COND_ILE:
> > > > -
> > > >    return a >= b;
> > > > -
> > > >    return a <= b;
> > > > case COND_SS:
> > > >    case COND_ISS:
> > > >        return ( a & b ) ? 1 : 0;

FW: RE: My 1.0 wish list

[Huw Davies]

On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:49:41PM -0500, EA Durbin wrote:
> Why when i edit the code to change this, does it revert back when i compile 
> it?

You need to edit cond.y (bison generates cond.tab.c).

Huw.

FW: RE: My 1.0 wish list

[EA Durbin]

I still can't fix it, perhaps you could have a deeper look Hans.
> From: "EA Durbin" 
> To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
> CC: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: FW: RE: My 1.0 wish list
> Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 12:49:41 -0500
>
> Why when i edit the code to change this, does it revert back when i compile 
> it?
> > From: "EA Durbin" 
> > To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
> > CC: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: FW: RE: My 1.0 wish list
> > Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 12:12:18 -0500
> >
> > I think i might actually see the problem. Let me test it.
> >
> > In  cond.tab.c the regexes are all wrong for matching the comparison 
> > tests.
> >
> > { {'~','<','=',0}, COND_IGE },
> >
> > This should be parsing as
> >
> > { {'~','>','=',0}, COND_IGE },
> >
> > and
> >        { {'~','<',0},     COND_IGT },
> >
> > we're matching a less than sign, so if it is matching the "<" it runs 
> > COND_IGT it should be
> >    { {'~','>',0},     COND_IGT },
> >
> > > From: "EA Durbin" 
> > > To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
> > > CC: [e-mail]
> > > Subject: Re: FW: RE: My 1.0 wish list
> > > Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 11:59:25 -0500
> > >
> > > Nice Catch!!!
> > >
> > > But unfortunately no, it doesn't fix the problem, the test SELECT * FROM 
> > > TABLE WHERE testcondition >= testinteger is still returning the wrong 
> > > results.
> > >
> > > are we using the case COND_ILE when we compare for greater than or equal 
> > > to? Or just when less than or equal to?
> > >
> > > or does SELECT * FROM TABLE WHERE >= or > only call IGE or IGT?
> > > > From: Hans Leidekker 
> > > > To: "EA Durbin" 
> > > > CC: [e-mail]
> > > > Subject: Re: FW: RE: My 1.0 wish list
> > > > Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 11:29:49 +0200
> > > >
> > > > On Sunday 04 June 2006 11:01, EA Durbin wrote:
> > > > > It shouldnt matter whether its >= or >, they both return the wrong
> > > >
> > > > results
> > > > > in the actual msi installer and the right results in db.c.
> > > >
> > > > Does this patch help?
> > > >
> > > > -Hans
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/dlls/msi/cond.y b/dlls/msi/cond.y
> > > > index b32c417..47f858a 100644
> > > > --- a/dlls/msi/cond.y
> > > > +++ b/dlls/msi/cond.y
> > > > @@ -463,7 +463,7 @@ static INT compare_int( INT a, INT opera
> > > >          return a >= b;
> > > >      case COND_LE:
> > > >      case COND_ILE:
> > > > -
> > > >    return a >= b;
> > > > -
> > > >    return a <= b;
> > > > case COND_SS:
> > > >    case COND_ISS:
> > > >        return ( a & b ) ? 1 : 0;