shell32: FOF_MULTIDESTFILES must be set when copying files into directory

[Michael Karcher]

Am Montag, den 20.10.2008, 19:04 +0400 schrieb Vitaly Perov:

> >I suspect (but I am definitely not an expert in this area), that the
> >patch Vitaly Perov sent:
> >
> >| +    /* move many files into directory with FOF_MULTIDESTFILES */
> >| +    set_curr_dir_path(from, "test?.txt\0");
> >| +    set_curr_dir_path(to, "testdir2\0");
> >| +    retval = SHFileOperationA(&shfo2);
> >| +    todo_wine
> >| +    {
> >| +        ok(retval == ERROR_SUCCESS, "Expected ERROR_SUCCESS, got %d\n", retval);
> >| +        ok(file_exists("testdir2\\test2.txt"), "Expected the file 'test2.txt' to exist\n");
> >| +        ok(file_exists("testdir2\\test4.txt"), "Expected the directory 'test4.txt' to exist\n");
> >| +    }
> 
> This test is not related to patch "shell32: FOF_MULTIDESTFILES must be set 
> when copying files into directory"
> If the translation of "rather than" is "instead of", now I see my fault.
> But this test is passed in windows (win2k3). It doesn't pass in wine.
> So, it show difference between windows and wine behaviour.
> So, what's wrong in this test?

I honestly don't know. I can add that this test passes on XP SP3 too. It
can be helpfull to include a history into the patch (saying: third
resend: Changed <this and that>). One really has to ask Alexandre, or
ask on wine-devel for feedback. Something like "Obviously, patch <http
link here> did not get applied even after resending. Does anybody see
anything obviously wrong with it?". As a guide to non-native speakers on
#winehackers: Just ask (when julliard is online and not marked as ways)
"julliard: What is wrong with <http link here>". Copy'n'paste all
responses (recognizable by being from Alexandre or starting with your
nickname) and try to make sense of them later.

Regards,
  Michael Karcher