Am Tuesday 20 April 2010 20:57:41 schrieb Paul Vriens: > On 04/20/2010 08:37 PM, Stefan Leichter wrote: > > Am Tuesday 20 April 2010 07:59:22 schrieb Paul Vriens: > >> On 04/19/2010 11:44 PM, Stefan Leichter wrote: > >>> --- > >>> include/wine/test.h | 6 +++++- > >>> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > >> > >> Hi Stefan, > >> > >> What's the idea/thought behind this (or what problem are you trying to > >> solve)? > > > > Hi Paul, > > > > the problem is the "command line parsing" of ShellExecuteEx, see bug19666 > > (http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19666#c3). > > > > When a directory contains two executables where the name of the first, > > without extension, is the leading part of the name of the second and the > > second file have a blank at the position where the first file has the > > dot, wine implementation of ShellExecuteEx starts the first executable > > when the name of the second given to ShellExecuteEx. > > > > If a unittest call the second executable via ShellExecuteEx, the first > > executable is started and the test target is the trailing part of the > > filename including the extension. This causes a test failure because the > > test target does not exist. > > > > Example: > > test file.exe > > test file two.exe > > > > Builtin ShellExecuteEx starts always "test file.exe". If "test file > > two.exe" was passed as name to be ShellExecuteEx argv[1] will be > > "two.exe". > > > > To get around this problem and make a valid unittest without fixing the > > problem, i looked for another way to pass the test target to the > > executable. > > This statement classifies this patch as a hack, not?
What is your suggestion about my last point, which you removed silently? -- Bye Stefan
