On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 1:17 AM, Erich Hoover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:44 PM, James Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 12:29 AM, Erich Hoover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Patch Originally From: > > > Louis Lenders > > > Description: > > > This patch adds conformance tests for WritePrivateProfileString > sharing > > > problems. The patch was created by Louis Lenders and extensively > tested, > > > but never submitted (see Bug #5024). Please note that a couple of the > tests > > > now fail because cached profile information is returned, resolving that > > > problem is outside the scope of these patches. > > > Changelog: > > > kernel32: Test for WritePrivateProfileString Sharing Permissions > > > > > > > If a test fails, it has to be wrapped in todo_wine, else make test will > fail. > > > > -- > > James Hawkins > > > > I would argue that make test should fail for regressions, though I > don't know when exactly this particular problem surfaced. Re-ording > the tests can actually mask the problem as well as inserting > todo_wine, which would be preferred? >
Um make test does fail for regressions. make test fails if an ok call fails and is not covered by todo_wine, and it also fails when a test in a todo_wine block succeeds. That's how we keep track of the tests. If reordering the tests masks the problem, what's the point of the tests? -- James Hawkins
