Ensured to work with both the current `klist` implementation and the one modified to use KerbQueryTicketCacheExMessage. Patch for `klist` will be sent separately.
--
v5: dlls/kerberos: Implement KerbQueryTicketCacheExMessage.
https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/3393
This is meant to simplify testing conditions that generally hold true
but may occasionally fail due to interference from external factors
(such as processes that start / stop, network connections being
opened / closed, etc).
The trick is to loop a few times on the set of flaky conditions until
they succeed. During the last attempt all failures are recorded as
usual, while in the previous runs, the tryok() failures area ignored
but cause one more attempt to be made.
The simplest case looks like this:
LOOP_ON_FLAKY_TESTS(3)
{
// ok() failures are never ignored and not retried
ok(..., "check 1", ...);
// tryok() failures are ignored except on the last attempt
tryok(..., "check 2", ...);
}
There is also:
* attempt_retry() which marks the current attempt as failed as if
calling tryok(0), and returns true if another attempt can be made.
* attempt_failed() which returns true if an ok() call failed.
---
This is independent from the 'flaky' mechanism which adds some naming
constraints. The loop macro is still called LOOP_ON_FLAKY_TESTS()
despite being unrelated to the flaky mechanism. The attempt_retry()
and attempt_failed() macro names also don't make it obvious that they
are related to tryok().
I think this mechanism is better than the flaky one because a flaky test
can go bad without anyone noticing, whereas if a tryok() starts failing
systematically it will cause a real failure.
The other side of that coin is that, unlike flaky, the tryok()
mechanism does not entirely eliminate the possibility of getting a
failure, it just reduces it; though by adjusting the maximum number of
attempts one can achieve an arbitrarily low failure rate. For instance
if an ok() call fails 10% of the time and one wants a maximum of 1 in
a million failure rate, use LOOP_ON_FLAKY_TESTS(6). The cost is an
increased run time in the worst case.
This also limits the use of this mechanism to tests that have a
reasonably low failure rate to start with (otherwise one has to loop
too many times). Also note that there are cases where looping
essentially reduce the failure rate to zero. For instance
ieframe:webbrowser fails if IE creates a net session while the test is
counting them. But IE only creates the one net session on start up so
trying even one more time should guarantee that the test will succeed.
Other cases like scheduling delays and the creation of network
connections are more probabilistic in nature. Maybe a comment in test.h
should offer some guideline as to the target failure rate.
Eventually this may replace the flaky mechanism but that depends on
how well it works in practice and how practical it is to loop on flaky
tests. It seems to be going well in the few cases I looked at. But I
think this mechanism has value even if the two end up coexisting
indefinitely.
This MR uses the tryok() in some actual tests for illustration and testing purposes. The final MR will probably split most of those off to separate MRs.
--
https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/3418
This get us pass the "Update your browser" blocker in adobe's sign-in page. The page itself doesn't make use of `window.MutationObserver`.
However the sign-in page is still broken.
--
v14: mshtml: add stubs for MutationObserver methods
mshtml: implement window.MutationObserver with MutationObserver stub
https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/3391
This is first part in a series that implements Cycle Collection for every mshtml object (dispex) and cleans up rest of the code based on it, which is obviously needed due to dynamic props and other extra object-specific refs.
In an effort to split it up as much as possible, since it already has quite a lot of restructuring and changes, some of the earlier patches will introduce temporary leaks or cyclic refs, but that's because we'll later handle them properly with the dispex CC. These shouldn't affect behavior, though, so it shouldn't pose problems for functionality.
Nodes are, initially, not changed much (other than to make it compatible with the dispex) to keep changes as small as possible. They still use their own CC mechanism and refcounting, which is hackish but that is solved in a follow-up MR, so it's temporary only.
Eventually, every object (including nodes) will use the dispex's vtbl to do its Cycle Collection, except for stuff like outer window (which is a special case).
In this first part, the objects that are using the node CC will have no-op dispex CC methods since they are using the node's, but this is temporary only.
--
https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/3408