Unknown issue with test.winehq.org

[Paul Vriens]

Peter Oberndorfer wrote:
> On Thursday 01 March 2007 08:30, Paul Vriens wrote:
>> Alexandre Julliard wrote:
>>> Paul Vriens <paul.vriens.wine at gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> exception: 42 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 0 failures), 0 skipped.
>>>> exception: 279 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 5 failures), 0 skipped.
>>>>
>>>> The first one triggers the 'end of this test' in dissect. The second
>>>> one is thus not accepted as dissect expects a 'start' line (and a line
>>>> in between actually).
>>>>
>>>> The question now is: should dissect handle these cases or is this
>>>> particular test-case wrong?
>>> It's because some of the tests are run in a child process. dissect
>>> should probably handle it, ideally by reporting the sum of the test
>>> counts as the results for the whole test.
>>>
>> So what's the difference between this one and for example the following ones 
>> running in child processes:
>>
>> kernel32:process start dlls/kernel32/tests/process.c 1.10
>> tests/process.c: 1 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 0 failures), 0 skipped.
>> tests/process.c: 1 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 0 failures), 0 skipped.
>> tests/process.c: 1 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 0 failures), 0 skipped.
>> tests/process.c: 1 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 0 failures), 0 skipped.
>> tests/process.c: 1 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 0 failures), 0 skipped.
>> tests/process.c: 1 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 0 failures), 0 skipped.
>> tests/process.c: 1 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 0 failures), 0 skipped.
>> tests/process.c: 1 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 0 failures), 0 skipped.
>> tests/process.c: 1 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 0 failures), 0 skipped.
>> tests/process.c: 1 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 0 failures), 0 skipped.
>> tests/process.c: 1 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 0 failures), 0 skipped.
>> tests/process.c: 1 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 0 failures), 0 skipped.
>> tests/process.c: 1 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 0 failures), 0 skipped.
>> tests/process.c: 1 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 0 failures), 0 skipped.
>> tests/process.c: 1 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 0 failures), 0 skipped.
>> tests/process.c: 1 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 0 failures), 0 skipped.
>> tests/process.c: 1 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 0 failures), 0 skipped.
>> process: 396 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 6 failures), 0 skipped.
>>
>> or:
>>
>> msvcrt:file start dlls/msvcrt/tests/file.c 1.45
>> tests/file.c: 3 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 0 failures), 0 skipped.
>> tests/file.c: 1 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 0 failures), 0 skipped.
>> file: 361 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 0 failures), 0 skipped.
>>
>> or better yet:
>>
>> shell32:shellpath start dlls/shell32/tests/shellpath.c 1.16
>> tests/shellpath.c: 10 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 4 failures), 0 skipped.
>> tests/shellpath.c: 4 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 0 failures), 0 skipped.
>> shellpath: 452 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 0 failures), 0 skipped.
>>
>> Obviously the start of line is a filename for these ones, whereas the start of 
>> the line for the exception one is the test itself.
>>
>> Should we consolidate the above ones as well? I think yes, cause the shell32 
>> example is reflected as 0 errors on test.winehq.org.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Paul.
>>
> Hi,
> sorry for not replying earlier, i didn't check mail yesterday.
> 
> If the problem is only the prefix of the test result line the following trivial patch will make the tests work again.
> Output is now:
> 
> ... more traces....
> exception.c:644:excpetion 0xc0000008 at 00000000 firstchance=0 Eip=0x24000b, Eax=0xf00f00f0
> tests/exception.c: 42 tests executed (22 marked as todo, 0 failures), 0 skipped.
> exception: 280 tests executed (13 marked as todo, 0 failures), 0 skipped.
> 
> Will send to wine-patches.
> Sorry for breaking tests :-/
> 
> Greetings Peter
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> diff --git a/dlls/ntdll/tests/exception.c b/dlls/ntdll/tests/exception.c
> index 08ec9c6..9a70264 100644
> --- a/dlls/ntdll/tests/exception.c
> +++ b/dlls/ntdll/tests/exception.c
> @@ -600,7 +600,7 @@ static void test_debugger(void)
>          return;
>      }
>  
> -    sprintf(cmdline, "%s %s %s", my_argv[0], my_argv[1], "debuggee");
> +    sprintf(cmdline, "%s %s %s", my_argv[0], "tests/exception.c", "debuggee");
>      ok(CreateProcess(NULL, cmdline, NULL, NULL, FALSE, DEBUG_PROCESS, NULL, NULL,
>                       &si, &pi) != 0, "error: %u\n", GetLastError());
>  
Hi,

I actually sent in a patch (for the website) earlier today that should deal with 
this as well. My patch  makes it possible to have both types of result-lines and 
the number will be added for every single test (this wasn't the case before).

Don't know if both should go in? We definitely need mine (or something alike if 
Jeremy, or anybody for that matter, doesn't like it) to cope with these multiple 
lines.

Cheers,

Paul.