Am Sonntag, 8. September 2013, 11:32:26 schrieb Francois Gouget: > On Thu, 5 Sep 2013, Wolfgang Walter wrote: > [...] > > > To see that my later patches are needed you must modify the test a little > > bit: > > > > - dlls/kernel32/tests/comm.c.old 2013-09-05 13:40:10.275757373 +0200 > > +++ dlls/kernel32/tests/comm.c 2013-09-05 13:40:06.779074398 +0200 > > @@ -844,6 +844,8 @@ > > > > after - before, bytes, baud); > > > > /* don't wait for WriteFile completion */ > > > > + Sleep(2000); > > + > > > > S(U(ovl_wait)).Offset = 0; > > S(U(ovl_wait)).OffsetHigh = 0; > > ovl_wait.hEvent = CreateEvent(NULL, TRUE, FALSE, NULL); > > I did not look at the specifics of this case but I agree with the > general principle of making tests reasonably independent from each > other. This way we know exactly what works and what does not. It's not > an absolute rule but we do try for that already when we reset LastError > between tests for instance, or in some other cases when we delete some > resource and recreate it for each test. > > I guess the above is not really the patch that you propose but I'll > still comment on it: we also want the tests to run as fast as possible > so Sleep() is bad. However if we were to Sleep() only if the previous > test failed I think that would be ok.
Indeed this patch is not the proposed one. It is a variation of a test to show a different problem. My patch to make two tests more independed from each other only sleeps if the first test fails. Regards, -- Wolfgang Walter Studentenwerk München Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts Abteilungsleiter IT Leopoldstraße 15 80802 München
