[1/2] include/wine: add option to specify the unittest target via environment variable

[Paul Vriens]

On 04/21/2010 07:21 AM, Stefan Leichter wrote:
> Am Tuesday 20 April 2010 20:57:41 schrieb Paul Vriens:
>> On 04/20/2010 08:37 PM, Stefan Leichter wrote:
>>> Am Tuesday 20 April 2010 07:59:22 schrieb Paul Vriens:
>>>> On 04/19/2010 11:44 PM, Stefan Leichter wrote:
>>>>> ---
>>>>>     include/wine/test.h |    6 +++++-
>>>>>     1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> Hi Stefan,
>>>>
>>>> What's the idea/thought behind this (or what problem are you trying to
>>>> solve)?
>>>
>>> Hi Paul,
>>>
>>> the problem is the "command line parsing" of ShellExecuteEx, see bug19666
>>> (http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19666#c3).
>>>
>>> When a directory contains two executables where the name of the first,
>>> without extension, is the leading part of the name of the second and the
>>> second file have a blank at the position where the first file has the
>>> dot, wine implementation of ShellExecuteEx starts the first executable
>>> when the name of the second given to ShellExecuteEx.
>>>
>>> If a unittest call the second executable via ShellExecuteEx, the first
>>> executable is started and the test target is the trailing part of the
>>> filename including the extension. This causes a test failure because the
>>> test target does not exist.
>>>
>>> Example:
>>> test file.exe
>>> test file two.exe
>>>
>>> Builtin ShellExecuteEx starts always "test file.exe". If "test file
>>> two.exe" was passed as name to be ShellExecuteEx argv[1] will be
>>> "two.exe".
>>>
>>> To get around this problem and make a valid unittest without fixing the
>>> problem, i looked for another way to pass the test target to the
>>> executable.
>>
>> This statement classifies this patch as a hack, not?
>
> What is your suggestion about my last point, which you removed silently?
>

Sorry for that but that last point looked to me like you wanted to have 
a test for ShellExecuteEx without any parameter. Not sure what to 
comment/suggest on that.

I must say that I haven't thoroughly checked the code/patches. It's just 
the statements "get around" and "without fixing the problem" that 
triggered me.

-- 
Cheers,

Paul.