rpc_J_PL4

[Francois Gouget]

On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Greg Turner wrote:

> On Wednesday 04 December 2002 02:31 am, Francois Gouget wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Greg Turner wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > > Anyhoo, yes, I like something like what you are doing better, it
> > > seems that if anything might just break out of the blue, it would
> > > be the unicode version, right?  So I should have done more like
> > > that and that way wine doesn't lose the test.  knowing there's no
> > > crash involved makes the difference, I guess.
> >
> > Submitting for inclusion then :-)
>
> well, if it doesn't crash, I say we'd might as well run the tests but
> show traces instead of "ok"'s on failure.... I really wish there was a
> "whatever" macro that took the same syntax as "ok" but didn't
> constitute failure (or is there?  perhaps I should make one?)

You probably don't really want to do that. If you replaced all the ok
with this macro then it would be very hard to detect errors: one would
have to manually inspect the test's output.

What you may do is keep using the 'ok' macro but write the condition as
follows:

rc=function_to_test();
ok(rc==RPC_S_CANNOT_SUPPORT || <rest_of_orignal_condition>,"...");

But if the first call failed with RPC_S_CANNOT_SUPPORT it's probably not
worth testing the others. Doing it this way also ensures that our
implementation supports all the Unicode functions because if the first
call succeeds then all subsequent Unicode calls must succeed too.


-- 
Francois Gouget         fgouget at free.fr        http://fgouget.free.fr/
           Cahn's Axiom: When all else fails, read the instructions.