msi: Make MsiInstallProduct conformance test depend on proper UI level processing.

[James Hawkins]

On 2/7/07, Misha Koshelev <mk144210 at bcm.tmc.edu> wrote:
> Hi, here is my proposed patch to the current msi MsiInstallProduct
> consistency test that will make it's success depend on proper process of
> UI flags (as well as everything else it depends on to make a successful
> install). It seems to me like this is the simplest way to add this test
> (it is only 5-6 lines added total), and it seems fair to me to add it to
> this existing test for two reasons:
> 1. The test is already testing a full product install (installs files,
> services, registry values, etc) and my modification will simply result
> in either no modification to these actions if UI level processing is
> good or complete failure if it is bad, which will make the problem very
> easy to diagnose.
> 2. Looking through instructions on msdn it seems that there isn't a
> kosher way to make a very simple MSI file that just, say, writes a
> registry value (without doing costing, install validation, having a full
> features table, installing some features, etc.) which would make a
> separate function easy to implement and it does not really seem
> necessary to copy and paste the whole test_MsiInstallProduct (or
> similar) function just to check UI level processing.
>
> Changelog:
>
>         * msi: Make MsiInstallProduct conformance test depend on proper UI
> level processing.
>

You need to put whatever you're trying to test into a new test
function.  As-is, it's not clear what you're testing and we need to
keep the tests logically separate.  Test both a success and a failure
case, plus all the in between cases.

> If the full UI is started (incorrectly)
> +     * the InstallUISequence table will be used, and the install will fail. If the full UI is
> +     * not started (correctly) the InstallExecuteSequence table will be used.

Why does the install fail if we run the InstallUISequence action?.
Also, InstallExecuteSequence runs no matter what so this comment would
need to be fixed.

-- 
James Hawkins