[3/4] secur32/tests: Add a test for QueryCredentialsAttributes(SECPKG_CRED_ATTR_NAMES). Take 2.

[Nikolay Sivov]

On 12/12/2013 10:43, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> Nikolay Sivov <bunglehead at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> +    st = pQueryCredentialsAttributesA(&cred, SECPKG_CRED_ATTR_NAMES, &names);
>>>>> +    ok(st == SEC_E_NO_CREDENTIALS || st == SEC_E_UNSUPPORTED_FUNCTION /* before Vista */, "expected SEC_E_NO_CREDENTIALS, got %08x\n", st);
>>>>> +
>>>> Second possible return code should be broken(), otherwise your code
>>>> change in next patch won't make any effect on tests.
>>> SEC_E_UNSUPPORTED_FUNCTION is a perfectly valid error code, broken is not
>>> appropriate here. My next patch just changes Wine code to follow more recent
>>> Windows behaviour.
>>>
>> broken() is a way to mark it as undesired code for wine implementation,
>> it doesn't necessary mean that something
>> changed significantly from error to success and such. Old return code
>> will remain valid when running on windows.
> That's just another way of action.
I'm just pointing out that a particular improvement could be made to 
ensure code change is actually tested, that's all.
>   There are numerous places in Wine
> tests that accept several different error codes and none of them is
> marked as broken, my patch just does the same thing.
>
Well, that's irrelevant, there's some places where it's done like this 
and some where it's not.
But I get that you're not willing to change a patch, so I'll just wait 
for possible comments from others.