do ERR messages imply bugs?

[Ben Klein]

> chris ahrendt wrote:
>
> 17997 Gecko is installed and reran test... same result... valid bug

My guess is Gecko didn't install right.

> 17998 is the locking issue... and it occurs not just in the rest but in
> another application as well..

Bug in application, not in Wine.
Application: "Lock this surface for me"
Windows: "It's already locked, mofo! Ignoring"
Wine: "It's already locked, mofo, but I don't know if that's what
you're meant to do, so I'll print an error then ignore it"

2009/4/13 Vincent Povirk <madewokherd+8cd9 at gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Vitaliy Margolen
> <wine-devel at kievinfo.com> wrote:
>>> I'm not sure about the opengl error. It could mean that some display
>>> driver is offering some render_type flags which I'm not handling yet.
>>> That can also cause issues.
>>>
>>> err:wgl:get_render_type_from_fbconfig Unknown render_type: 0
>>
>> This is all well and good, but I'm seeing this errors from pretty much any
>> 3D application. Not that all these 3D apps work flawlessly on Wine to begin
>> with - haven't seen one yet. But it's been a policy to ignore all messages
>> from Wine until user can show the real problem. So far no tests fail - and
>> that is the only acceptable "problems" from tests.
>
> Ok, but my point is (and I'm not saying we should necessarily do
> this), according to the Wine Developer's Guide an err is something
> that we should be concerned about, by definition. If we buy this, and
> some current err messages are often harmless, implying no loss of
> important functionality, they should be changed to some other channel.

There is no way to determine what errors can be suppressed as warnings
(or whatever) and what are actually harmful to the running of the
application. After all, they are errors!

Chris: dammit, do a Reply-to-all! Don't send your mail to the last guy
who happened to post, send it to the list too.


2009/4/13 Vincent Povirk <madewokherd+8cd9 at gmail.com>:
> But the description doesn't say "invalid conditions". It says "serious
> errors in Wine". That's something that should never happen in tests,
> as it would imply that the state of the libraries we're testing (and
> thus the test) is invalid.

How about "serious errors in Wine, or in the test cases, sometimes
deliberate errors in the tests"? As Vitaliy points out, some tests
deliberately do invalid things to make sure they fail. We can't ONLY
test on things that succeed!