[PATCH try2 1/3] setupapi/tests: Add rudimentary tests for InstallHinfSectionA/W.

Misha Koshelev mk144210 at bcm.edu
Tue Jun 12 10:17:15 CDT 2007


On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 23:10 -0700, James Hawkins wrote:
> On 6/11/07, Misha Koshelev <mk144210 at bcm.edu> wrote:
> > Changes from previous version in patch 1:
> > * Comments to explain why this conformance test cannot be quite standard - see Notes comment @ beginning
> > * Try A function first - I decided that since the A function works on Win98 but not WinXP it is the one
> >   "broken" (reminder: W works on XP but not 98)
> > * Added asserts in helper _InstallHinfSection function to verify A/W function pointers to make sure that
> >   in the future useW is not misassigned (currently it is assigned properly in START_TEST(install) section as
> >   it was in previous version).
> > * Changed test_install to ok_install to make its purpose more clear. Specifically, the idea is that
> >   ok_install does the actual install and checks that everything is installed properly, whereas
> >   test_InstallHinfSection allows us to try using the _InstallHinfSection functions (through ok_install) in
> >   various ways to test effects of parameters on the installation (e.g., see patch 2)
> > * Use property of the "stub" functions of not changing last error to determine which function is stub instead
> >   of using registry checks
> >
> > Hopefully this patchset is clearer.
> >
> 
> This would still be clearer and more efficient if you set up a
> function pointer at the beginning of the tests, and just use that
> function for the rest of the tests.  You make a helper function that
> tests which version (A or W) works, and assign the working version to
> the function pointer.  This way, you don't have to deal with a useW
> variable, or any of that mess, and other people can write direct tests
> without having to use ok_install (which really shouldn't be needed if
> you use a function pointer).  Keep in mind you'll have to use void
> pointers for the string parameters when declaring the function pointer
> type.
> 

You know I think you are right in that I can still make it a little
simpler and I think you'll like the result better. I'll post new patches
tonight.

Misha



More information about the wine-devel mailing list