On 10/25/07, Francois Gouget <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Here are some things I noticed while using this site. Let me know if I > it would help to make bug reports for these: > > * Some result entries are red with a dash in them and a blue border. > See the Windows 98 results for http://test.winehq.org/data/200710241000/ > I assume these means that the test did not load. However we should > distinguish two cases there: > > - if it did not run because the tested dll did not exist at all, then > it's not a test failure and thus the background should be green. > A typical case would be the crypt32 tests on Windows 98. > > - if the dll was there but the test still did not run, typically > because the dll is missing an export, then that's a bug in the test: it > should dynamically load that function so the other checks it performs > can be run. > A typical case is the gdi32 tests on Windows 98. > Ideally we'd even have a log showing the missing API but that's > probably too tricky to do on Windows. > > * Downloading the log file for a given test run gives me a file that's > called 'report'. It would be nice if it was called something like > 'vmware-win98-report' instead so that saving a couple of them in a > directory leads to fewer collisions. > > * It would be nice if the /data page looked more like a calendar with > the most current date easily accessible, and a less like the directory > listing it currently is. Then a / page would be nice too. > > I'm pretty unlikely to fix these, but at least here is a starting if > someone is inclined to do so: you will find the source for the > test.winehq.org website in the tools.git repository: > http://source.winehq.org/git/tools.git/?a=tree;f=winetest > > To get hold of the sources, see the instructions there: > http://www.winehq.org/site/git#modules >
Looking at the test data, all of the msi:install tests timeout. I just ran the install tests in XP running under vmware on a 3ghz machine. The tests took 9m41s. That completely blows away the 2min timeout. There's nothing wrong with the tests, they just take a long time. I don't think we should extend the timeout, because it's very subjective and more tests will be added, meaning we'll have to change the timeout eventually. I do think we should have a flag or variable that allows the timeout to be ignored for certain tests. Any opinions? -- James Hawkins
