paul.vriens.wine at gmail.com
Tue Aug 12 01:01:25 CDT 2008
Dan Kegel wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Vijay Kiran Kamuju <infyquest at gmail.com> wrote:
>> When running tests for the patch, I think we should just run the tests
>> of the dlls that are affected direct;y or indirectly by that change.
>> its running the tests for entire wine, which is very time consuming.
> True, but hey, it was easier to code. And getting anything like this
> working at all is pretty hard. Figuring out which tests a give
> patch affects is an extra challenge I'd rather not face just now.
> Once it's up and working well we can refine it.
I'd argue that testing just the affected dll is correct. What about things like
patches to ntdll/kernel32/advapi32 (and the likes). They could influence far
more tests then just the ones for it's own dll.
More information about the wine-devel