On 28 February 2010 19:11, Paul Vriens <paul.vriens.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 02/26/2010 11:07 PM, Reece Dunn wrote: >> >> + todo_wine >> + ok(broken(supported == (INTERFACESAFE_FOR_UNTRUSTED_CALLER | >> INTERFACESAFE_FOR_UNTRUSTED_DATA)) || >> + supported == (INTERFACESAFE_FOR_UNTRUSTED_CALLER | >> INTERFACESAFE_FOR_UNTRUSTED_DATA | INTERFACE_USES_SECURITY_MANAGER) /* >> msxml3 SP8+ */, >> + "Expected (INTERFACESAFE_FOR_UNTRUSTED_CALLER | >> INTERFACESAFE_FOR_UNTRUSTED_DATA) " >> + "or (INTERFACESAFE_FOR_UNTRUSTED_CALLER | >> INTERFACESAFE_FOR_UNTRUSTED_DATA | INTERFACE_USES_SECURITY_MANAGER), " > > Hi Reece, > > We usually don't add the broken() possibility as one of the expected > outcomes in the ok-message.
I have applied your comment to the tests I have been working on and submitting that as the fix for the failing tests, as I have reworked the tests to extend the coverage. Thanks, - Reece
