[PATCH 1/2] shell32: SHFileOperation: test added [try 2]

[James Hawkins]

On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 6:24 AM, Vitaly Perov <vitperov at etersoft.ru> wrote:
>> /* move files using glob to a dest dir with FOF_MULTIDESTFILES */
>> shfo.fFlags |= FOF_MULTIDESTFILES;
>> set_curr_dir_path(from, "test?.txt\0");
>> set_curr_dir_path(to, "testdir2\0");
>> ok(!file_exists("testdir2\\test2.txt"), "The file is not moved yet\n");
>> ok(!file_exists("testdir2\\test4.txt"), "The directory is not moved
>> yet\n"); retval = SHFileOperationA(&shfo);
>> ok(retval == ERROR_SUCCESS, "Files and directories are moved to
>> directory\n"); ok(file_exists("testdir2\\test2.txt"), "The file is
>> moved\n");
>> ok(file_exists("testdir2\\test4.txt"), "The directory is moved\n");
>> ok(file_exists("testdir2\\test4.txt\\test1.txt"), "The file in
>> subdirectory is moved\n");
>
> Yes! It's exactly what I want to test!
> But in last version the source is quite different:
>
> shfo.lpszProgressTitle = NULL;
>
>    set_curr_dir_path(from, "test1.txt\0");
>    set_curr_dir_path(to, "test4.txt\0");
>    ok(!SHFileOperationA(&shfo), "Prepare test to check how directories are
> moved recursively\n");
>    ok(!file_exists("test1.txt"), "test1.txt should not exist\n");
>    ok(file_exists("test4.txt\\test1.txt"), "The file is not moved\n");
>
>    set_curr_dir_path(from, "test?.txt\0");
>    set_curr_dir_path(to, "testdir2\0");
>    ok(!file_exists("testdir2\\test2.txt"), "The file is not moved yet\n");
>    ok(!file_exists("testdir2\\test4.txt"), "The directory is not moved
> yet\n");
>    ok(!SHFileOperationA(&shfo), "Files and directories are moved to
> directory\n");
>    ok(file_exists("testdir2\\test2.txt"), "The file is moved\n");
>    ok(file_exists("testdir2\\test4.txt"), "The directory is moved\n");
>    ok(file_exists("testdir2\\test4.txt\\test1.txt"), "The file in
> subdirectory is moved\n");
>
> It's passes! If I insert the following line:
>> shfo.fFlags |= FOF_MULTIDESTFILES;
> It fails!
>

That's exactly what I just said in my previous email.

> I was unable to find when these changes have been done.
> So, may be it's your local uncommited changes?
>

I don't know what you're talking about.

-- 
James Hawkins