msi: Make MsiInstallProduct conformance test depend on proper UI level processing.

Misha Koshelev mk144210 at
Wed Feb 7 13:09:46 CST 2007

On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 12:30 -0600, James Hawkins wrote:
> On 2/7/07, Misha Koshelev <mk144210 at> wrote:
> > Hi, here is my proposed patch to the current msi MsiInstallProduct
> > consistency test that will make it's success depend on proper process of
> > UI flags (as well as everything else it depends on to make a successful
> > install). It seems to me like this is the simplest way to add this test
> > (it is only 5-6 lines added total), and it seems fair to me to add it to
> > this existing test for two reasons:
> > 1. The test is already testing a full product install (installs files,
> > services, registry values, etc) and my modification will simply result
> > in either no modification to these actions if UI level processing is
> > good or complete failure if it is bad, which will make the problem very
> > easy to diagnose.
> > 2. Looking through instructions on msdn it seems that there isn't a
> > kosher way to make a very simple MSI file that just, say, writes a
> > registry value (without doing costing, install validation, having a full
> > features table, installing some features, etc.) which would make a
> > separate function easy to implement and it does not really seem
> > necessary to copy and paste the whole test_MsiInstallProduct (or
> > similar) function just to check UI level processing.
> >
> > Changelog:
> >
> >         * msi: Make MsiInstallProduct conformance test depend on proper UI
> > level processing.
> >
> You need to put whatever you're trying to test into a new test
> function.  As-is, it's not clear what you're testing and we need to
> keep the tests logically separate.  Test both a success and a failure
> case, plus all the in between cases.
> > If the full UI is started (incorrectly)
> > +     * the InstallUISequence table will be used, and the install will fail. If the full UI is
> > +     * not started (correctly) the InstallExecuteSequence table will be used.
> Why does the install fail if we run the InstallUISequence action?.
> Also, InstallExecuteSequence runs no matter what so this comment would
> need to be fixed.
> a fa
Weird, because it does indeed fail when running in full UI mode. 

Do you know a better (more proper) way to do this then? I was
researching this last night and I found either custom action 19 (this
number is off the top of my head) that will fail the install and display
a message or a failed Launch Condition which will also fail install and
display a message. The custom action 19 (?) worked beautifully in my
tests, but the problem is that it display a dialog box if it thinks it
is in full UI mode and waits for the user to press okay, and if I
understand correctly user input like this is a no no in writing wine
conformance tests. Do you have any suggestions for how to fail an
install in full UI mode without displaying a dialog box, or would this
be okay in the case of this specific conformance test?


More information about the wine-devel mailing list