Hi,
While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures.
Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be
wrong, but could you please double-check?
Full results can be found at
https://newtestbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=2315
Your paranoid
Hi Andre,
According to my test plan of the registry merging project, I will add
new tests for HKCR. At first I tried to add them to the old code but I
find it become too long and hard-reading. I had to rewrite them to a
series of strict and neat tests, classified as read/write operations,
Stefan Leichter stefan.leich...@camline.com writes:
fixes the crash
http://test.winehq.org/data/1262f07609e6722a841f511445f145d941848800/linux_arm-
sle85276/advapi32:cred.html
That's not supposed to happen, please fix the code instead.
--
Alexandre Julliard
julli...@winehq.org
Francois Gouget fgou...@free.fr writes:
I know it's bad form to test for the Windows version but I'm not sure
what other check would be relevant here.
I think we can safely ignore such old versions at this point.
--
Alexandre Julliard
julli...@winehq.org
Now I ran the tests on another Linux system with wine, and there the
failing tests are skipped, so it seems I did not fully understand
what's going on here and why the tests are run on my system.
Hi,
While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures.
Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be
wrong, but could you please double-check?
Full results can be found at
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=16946
Your paranoid
to quicker see on which platforms it doesn't work
---
dlls/advapi32/security.c |2 +-
dlls/advapi32/tests/registry.c | 11 ---
2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/dlls/advapi32/security.c b/dlls/advapi32/security.c
index 1aa7990..4ee5c7b 100644
Am 13.03.2011 15:28, schrieb Nikolay Sivov:
to quicker see on which platforms it doesn't work
---
dlls/advapi32/security.c |2 +-
dlls/advapi32/tests/registry.c | 11 ---
2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/dlls/advapi32/security.c
Marko Nikolic grk...@gmail.com writes:
Fixed test failures in 64-bit build.
It would be better to choose a more appropriate invalid value for a BOOL
variable.
--
Alexandre Julliard
julli...@winehq.org
Hi,
While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures.
Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be
wrong, but could you please double-check?
Full results can be found at
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=2444
Your paranoid
Nikolay Sivov nsi...@codeweavers.com writes:
@@ -626,15 +627,22 @@ static void test_query_value_ex(void)
trace(test_query_value_ex: type set to: 0x%08x\n, type);
ok(size == 0, size should have been set to 0 instead of %d\n,
size);
}
+todo_wine ok(GetLastError()
On 2/26/2010 16:38, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Nikolay Sivovnsi...@codeweavers.com writes:
@@ -626,15 +627,22 @@ static void test_query_value_ex(void)
trace(test_query_value_ex: type set to: 0x%08x\n, type);
ok(size == 0, size should have been set to 0 instead of %d\n,
Nikolay Sivov bungleh...@gmail.com writes:
On 2/26/2010 16:38, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Nikolay Sivovnsi...@codeweavers.com writes:
@@ -626,15 +627,22 @@ static void test_query_value_ex(void)
trace(test_query_value_ex: type set to: 0x%08x\n, type);
ok(size == 0,
On 2/26/2010 19:00, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Nikolay Sivovbungleh...@gmail.com writes:
On 2/26/2010 16:38, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Nikolay Sivovnsi...@codeweavers.com writes:
@@ -626,15 +627,22 @@ static void test_query_value_ex(void)
Nikolay Sivov bungleh...@gmail.com writes:
On 2/26/2010 19:00, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
I'm not saying that you should remove it, but that you should set last
error to 0xdeadbeef to make it clear whether you are expecting it to be
unchanged or set to 0. Right now your test could mean either.
On 2/26/2010 19:17, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Nikolay Sivovbungleh...@gmail.com writes:
On 2/26/2010 19:00, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
I'm not saying that you should remove it, but that you should set last
error to 0xdeadbeef to make it clear whether you are expecting it to be
Hi Alexandre,
+if (ReadEventLogA(handle, EVENTLOG_SEQUENTIAL_READ |
EVENTLOG_FORWARDS_READ,
+ 0, buf, sizeof(EVENTLOGRECORD), read, needed))
+{
I don't think this is correct. The first call will always fail as the
buffer is not big enough. This now
On 12/22/2009 20:09, Vladimir Pankratov wrote:
Hello all.
Fixed test crash in Wine.
changed files:
dlls/advapi32/tests/eventlog.c
Thanks.
Looks like you're hiding a real problem.
BTW, I don't see any crashes on Wine in test page. How did you test it?
On 12/22/2009 05:29 PM, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
On 12/22/2009 20:09, Vladimir Pankratov wrote:
Hello all.
Fixed test crash in Wine.
changed files:
dlls/advapi32/tests/eventlog.c
Thanks.
Looks like you're hiding a real problem.
BTW, I don't see any crashes on Wine in test page. How did you
On 11/18/2009 09:54 AM, Austin Lund wrote:
+TCHAR volumepathname[50];
Please don't use TCHAR's.
+BOOL testacl = FALSE;
+DWORD filesystemflags;
if (!pGetSecurityInfo)
{
@@ -3143,6 +3146,13 @@ static void test_GetSecurityInfo(void)
return;
}
+if
Austin Lund austin.l...@gmail.com writes:
@@ -3143,6 +3146,13 @@ static void test_GetSecurityInfo(void)
return;
}
+if (GetVolumePathName(myARGV[0], volumepathname, 50)
+GetVolumeInformation(volumepathname, NULL, 0, NULL, NULL,
filesystemflags, NULL, 0)
+
2009/11/18 Alexandre Julliard julli...@winehq.org:
Testing file system flags is not a good idea, that won't work on
Wine. It's better to test the results of the actual call.
The reason this test fails for me is because I have a FAT32 volume and
there is no ACL info stored, so the tests:
Austin Lund austin.l...@gmail.com writes:
2009/11/18 Alexandre Julliard julli...@winehq.org:
Testing file system flags is not a good idea, that won't work on
Wine. It's better to test the results of the actual call.
The reason this test fails for me is because I have a FAT32 volume and
Paul Vriens wrote:
And the subject of the mail should be a bit more than just
advapi32/tests.
Oops, sry. Read the second mail after resending in the patch
containing your first suggestions.
But I'm a bit confused about the meaning of todo_wine.
todo_wine discards output from failed tests, if I
Andreas Rosenberg wrote:
Paul Vriens wrote:
And the subject of the mail should be a bit more than just
advapi32/tests.
Oops, sry. Read the second mail after resending in the patch
containing your first suggestions.
But I'm a bit confused about the meaning of todo_wine.
todo_wine discards
Andreas Rosenberg wrote:
Added a test to verify result of LookupAccountSid
The test fails here:
security.c:1599: Test failed: LookupAccountSidA() Expected account name:
paul got: INTERACTIVE
I guess this is the
Ge van Geldorp wrote:
Account names are localized. Similar to existing skip in line 1806.
Changelog:
Skip some tests using English names when running on non-English locales
---
dlls/advapi32/tests/security.c | 45
++-
1 files changed, 25 insertions(+),
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Paul Vriens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
(Try2 removes some useless LocalFree's when NewAcl is NULL, duh).
NT4 crashes at 3 distinct places. The first two we can get rid of by
removing
the LocalFree on failure. The third one we can skip as we can detect NT4
Nicolas Le Cam [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
@@ -614,7 +614,9 @@ static void test_enum_provider_types(void)
DWORD dwTypeCount;
/* actual values */
- DWORD index = 0;
+ /* the first provider type registry key may not have a TypeName subkey
+ * we use the second
2008/11/4 Alexandre Julliard [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Nicolas Le Cam [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
@@ -614,7 +614,9 @@ static void test_enum_provider_types(void)
DWORD dwTypeCount;
/* actual values */
- DWORD index = 0;
+ /* the first provider type registry key may not have a
Hi,
Should I consider second solution ?
Or perhaps adding a comment explaining why we use the second provider
type key would be enough ?
Original patch is available at [1] for reference.
[1] http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2008-October/063475.html
Bye,
Nicolas Le Cam
2008/10/20
Paul Vriens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We test for a last error of 0, so we shouldn't set it to 0 before the
function is called. This however introduces a todo_wine.
Is there any reason to believe that last error should be 0 on success?
This looks more like a broken test to me.
--
Alexandre
On Feb 18, 2008 2:17 PM, Alexandre Julliard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Vriens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We test for a last error of 0, so we shouldn't set it to 0 before the
function is called. This however introduces a todo_wine.
Is there any reason to believe that last error should be
Paul Vriens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have no clue what the test does and what's wrong with it so can we
leave it like this? Or should we ask Rob to go
way back in his memory (June 2005) ;-)
Probably the last error check should simply be removed, since we expect
the call to succeed.
--
James Hawkins wrote:
On Feb 12, 2008 10:34 AM, Paul Vriens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Added some verbosity to the GetProcAddress stuff. The skips prevent the
crash(es) I'm seeing on win95.
What is the point of this 'verbosity'? You already add the skips, so
if a function isn't
On Feb 12, 2008 10:34 AM, Paul Vriens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Added some verbosity to the GetProcAddress stuff. The skips prevent the
crash(es) I'm seeing on win95.
What is the point of this 'verbosity'? You already add the skips, so
if a function isn't available for a test, you're
This is a little offtopic, but the extra testresults might be because
the test link was posted in the comments of a well-known dutch
computer site
(in dutch) http://tweakers.net/meuktracker/15817/Wine-0.9.42.html
I thought you might want to know, and I'll try to link the test more
often there :)
James Hawkins wrote:
On 7/2/07, Paul Vriens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I've added some tests for OpenServiceA. Some of them crash on Wine,
but I've
opted to let them in (inside an if(0) though). The crashes happen
because we
assume that when a handle is not NULL it's correct.
The
Paul Vriens wrote:
On 6/26/07, Paul Vriens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
While playing with native crypt32/wintrust I added a service
(CryptSvc) to the
registry (seems needed for native and XP+). With a full trace I get
some crashes
which made me start to write some tests for services. (Rolf
On 6/26/07, Paul Vriens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
While playing with native crypt32/wintrust I added a service (CryptSvc) to the
registry (seems needed for native and XP+). With a full trace I get some crashes
which made me start to write some tests for services. (Rolf Kalbermatter was
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Paul Vriens wrote:
[...]
as advapi32 is already linked to, we can use GetModuleHandle.
-if (!(module = LoadLibrary( advapi32.dll ))) return;
+if (!(module = GetModuleHandleA( advapi32.dll ))) return;
Well, since we're already linked to advapi32.dll, there's no need
Francois Gouget wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Paul Vriens wrote:
[...]
as advapi32 is already linked to, we can use GetModuleHandle.
-if (!(module = LoadLibrary( advapi32.dll ))) return;
+if (!(module = GetModuleHandleA( advapi32.dll ))) return;
Well, since we're already linked to
42 matches
Mail list logo
