Alexandre Julliard wrote:
It's not enough to simply pass converted ASCII
strings
to the W functions,
we have to test with real Unicode to check for
lossy W-A-W conversions, surrogate handling,
non-spacing chars, etc.
Aren't all these requirements just additional to
testing with converted
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
...and makes sure that the W functions are never actually tested with
Unicode input. It's not enough to simply pass converted ASCII strings
to the W functions, we have to test with real Unicode to check for
lossy W-A-W conversions, surrogate
--- Dimitrie O. Paun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
-- if explicit A or W handling is required, simply
use the xxxA or xxxW
without any #ifdefs
You definitely need #ifdefs or just unicode
conditional block around explicit calls of xxxW
functions.
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Andriy Palamarchuk wrote:
You definitely need #ifdefs or just unicode
conditional block around explicit calls of xxxW
functions. Otherwise these functions will be called on
platforms which do not support Unicode, even if test
application is compiled in ANSI mode.
Fine,
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
You don't need to
set the variable when running make test, but you
have the possibility
to set it if you want to override the default for
whatever reason.
I don't see why we should impose a less flexible
solution that won't
be more robust anyway.
Alexandre, by
Andriy Palamarchuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One more important change in C framework is support of
Unicode in testing.
Dimitry, can you look at it? See how it is used in
sysparams.c, search for has_unicode function call.
I'm interested in your comments.
I would suggest to explicitly use A
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
I would suggest to explicitly use A and W suffixes to avoid confusion:
not just SystemParametersInfo, but SystemParametersInfoA.
For tests, I think we should in fact use SystemParametersInfo, and then
compile the test twice -- for A and for W. Both
--- Dimitrie O. Paun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
For tests, I think we should in fact use
SystemParametersInfo, and then
compile the test twice -- for A and for W. Both
versions should behave the
same, right?
IMHO (after consulting with MSDN) you
Dimitrie O. Paun [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Win32 API is meant to be used that way, and so we should test it.
Besides, I don't see why they are so ugly. Writing xxx instead of xxxA or
xxxW is not ugly in any stretch of the word.
What's ugly is that you don't compile what you write. This
On 17 Jan 2002, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
[...]
What's ugly is that you don't compile what you write. This is the most
sure recipe to make sure the code doesn't compile. People will test
code in ASCII mode, and when some poor soul (like me ;-) tries to
compile in Unicode mode to run
Francois Gouget [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And having a single test that can be used to test both A and W
reduces code duplication, which helps maintainability and reduces the
amount of work we have to do.
...and makes sure that the W functions are never actually tested with
Unicode
Francois Gouget wrote:
The only issue I see is if the xxxA is implemented but xxxW is not or
reciprocally. Then we have a test that fails but cannot really be put as
a TODO since xxxA works. the right way to fix this is to implement the
function that is missing. Another way to handle this
Andriy Palamarchuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As we discussed before we can define platform at
runtime, so do we really need the WINETEST_PLATFORM
switch? This is one more thing to break. Somebody will
eventually mess with the switch when they run the test
application manually.
Well, that's
Andriy Palamarchuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Can you suggest how to implement these switches - as
command-line arguments or environment variables?
Environment variables are better. I did that already in the perl
framework, look at the runtest script for the variables I'm using. You
probably
14 matches
Mail list logo
