Conformance tests for SetSecurityDescriptorControl()

[Paul Bryan Roberts]

A long (paragraph) description of what was wrong and what is now better. 
(recommended)

One conformance test fails on a call to SetSecuirtyDescriptorControl() 
because the latter calls a stub in ntdll.dll.

However trivial the final implementation of the stubbed routine, one 
failing incidental invocation in a conformance test is insufficient for 
patch submission purposes.

Here is a sledge hammer of a conformance test that apparently adds 256 
tests that allow a Wine implementation of the stubbed routine to:
   - check two out of three parameters
   - return the value one would expect it to return
   - pass the original failing conformance test

THIS IS A RESEND

THIS IS AN ESSAY

I seem unable to stop my e-mail client wrapping text lines so I'm 
sending the patch as an attachment.

I joined up to do regression testing on an application I need, not to 
spend my spare time trying to get e-mail clients to do things they 
clearly don't want to do.

-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: 0002-Conformance-tests-for-SetSecurityDescriptorControl.txt
Url: http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/attachments/20080925/1f5f50ce/attachment.txt