The test indeed passes on AMD, so maybe it's fine?
The test fails on AMD, which is one reason why I want to remove it. See [Bug 51311](https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51311).
At the same time you say that you tried on an NVidia machine and the test passes -it doesn't allow sharing with a destination context that's been used?
NVIDIA does not allow sharing to a context that is already sharing with another context, so the test passes on NVIDIA.
how can the application also work then?
The application depends on a different but related behavior, which Wine does not test: Whether a context can share to a context that is not _sharing_ yet, but has been made _current_.
The application could be fixed without touching the test or changing the behavior of sharing to a context that is already sharing. Doing it that way would be as simple as changing `else if (!org->has_been_current && !org->sharing)` to `else if (!org->has_been_current && !org->sharing && !dest->sharing)`. However, it would look weird to treat a context that is already sharing differently from a context that has already been made current, and there doesn't appear to be any good reason for implementing that restriction in the first place, seeing as the test for it fails on AMD, and the comment above the test implies that it was written to test a strict interpretation of the WGL spec rather than testing what applications actually expect in the real world.
If this test is supposed to be reversed, maybe instead of removing it you should reverse its expectations, adding a broken result for all the cases where it fails, and adding a comment about what we chose as the "right" case to make it more explicit.
That's not a bad idea. Maybe it _would_ be better to just declare the AMD behavior for a context that is already sharing to be the "correct" behavior and add a second test that declares the "correct" behavior for a context that has already been made current. That way we would at least have tests that show that Wine is behaving as intended.
If I make the changes to the tests, would you be willing to review/approve this patch, or do I still need to look for someone else?