[PATCH 2/5] wait until all data from earlier test has been written in test_waittxempty

[Dmitry Timoshkov]

Jonas Maebe <jonas.maebe at elis.ugent.be> wrote:

> > The tests must pass under Wine without any additional "fixes" as they do
> > currently under Windows. If you add some code to the tests which suddenly
> > makes them pass under Wine - that's not a fix, Wine implementation should
> > be fixed instead.
> 
> What I understood from Wolfgang's previous explanations is that there is currently this situation:
> 
> todo_wine
>  test1();
> /* test1 fails because wine has a bug. As a side-effect, bytes will be left in the transmission buffer under wine, but not under windows. */
> test2();
> /* test2 also fails under wine because of the failure of test1 that influences the behaviour of test2, not because the functionality tested by test2 is broken. This make it impossible to individually evaluate test1() and test2(). */
> 
> So either
> * you add code in between that resets the state so that test2 can be run independently of whether test1 failed (as Wolfgang proposes), or
> * you put the tests in completely different executables so they don't influence each other (hopefully), or
> * you reorder the test so that first all the tests that currently work under wine are run (under the assumption that no regression will ever creep in), or
> * you require that bugs in wine routines are fixed in the order that they are called in that test (which would be strange)

How about a patch set which does:
1/2. add a workaround to the tests to pass under Wine
2/2. fix Wine code and simultaneously remove the workaround added by 1/2.

But that looks even more strange if the fix contained in 2/2 could be
sent alone.

-- 
Dmitry.