comctl32/ipaddress: Use ok() test instead of assert()

[Paul Vriens]

Nikolay Sivov wrote:
> Paul Vriens wrote:
>> Paul Vriens wrote:
>>> Nikolay Sivov wrote:
>>>> This test fails to create window sometimes on Win95,
>>>> let's turn it into general failure.
>>>>
>>>> Changelog:
>>>>     - replace assert() with ok() test
>>>>
>>>>> From b63fc6defb497505ecaab4921449327e875ab252 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>>> From: Nikolay Sivov <bunglehead at gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 14:26:37 +0400
>>>> Subject: Use ok() test instead of assert()
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>  dlls/comctl32/tests/ipaddress.c |    3 +--
>>>>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/dlls/comctl32/tests/ipaddress.c 
>>>> b/dlls/comctl32/tests/ipaddress.c
>>>> index d04223c..b8f30e4 100644
>>>> --- a/dlls/comctl32/tests/ipaddress.c
>>>> +++ b/dlls/comctl32/tests/ipaddress.c
>>>> @@ -33,8 +33,6 @@ static HWND create_ipaddress_control (void)
>>>>      handle = CreateWindowEx(0, WC_IPADDRESS, NULL,
>>>>                  WS_BORDER|WS_VISIBLE, 0, 0, 0, 0,
>>>>                  NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL);
>>>> -    assert(handle);
>>>> -
>>>>      return handle;
>>>>  }
>>>>  
>>>> @@ -45,6 +43,7 @@ static void test_get_set_text(void)
>>>>      INT r;
>>>>  
>>>>      hwnd = create_ipaddress_control();
>>>> +    ok(hwnd != NULL, "Expected window to be created\n");
>>>>  
>>>
>>> Shouldn't you insert a return here when hwnd is NULL. The following 
>>> tests will fail as well I guess.
>>>
>> Just had a look and it seems that only one box actually has this 
>> failure. Maybe a win_skip() would be 'better'?
>>
>> hwnd = create_ipaddress_control();
>> if (!hwnd)
>> {
>>     win_skip();
>>     return;
>> }
>>
>> Maybe even printing the last error in that win_skip() ?
>>
>> Especially as MSDN states:
>>
>> The IP address control is implemented in version 4.71 and later of 
>> Comctl32.dll.
>>
>> And this box has 4.70.0.1146.
>>
> Maybe it's true. But what about two others boxes:
> http://test.winehq.org/data/bf353f180d622cbf8508af7dbc9590e33293a6ab/95_gvg-w95/version.html 
> 
> http://test.winehq.org/data/bf353f180d622cbf8508af7dbc9590e33293a6ab/95_fg-win95/version.html 
> 
> 
> Version reported as 4.0, so it's pure Win95 - tests pass on it.
> 
Not really, all tests are skipped on these two boxes ;).

-- 
Cheers,

Paul.