cmd: Add test for %~dp0 expansion (bug 21382)

Alexandre Julliard julliard at
Sat Feb 13 11:02:36 CST 2010

Dan Kegel <dank at> writes:

> The current cmd test framework is not currently clever about
> resyncing after an error, so any missing or extra line
> in a test's output can cascade and cause lots of false
> reports.
> How about one file for each command recognized by cmd?  So
> there'd be test_if.cmd (which might cover else as well),
> test_goto.cmd, etc.  That feels more manageable to a test
> writer, I suspect.   The only problem is that pesky .rc file;
> it'd be nice to autogenerate it.  I can submit a patch to do
> that, but you rejected that last time, probably because
> dependencies were not handled perfectly.  Would a patch
> that generated the .rc file be accepted if it got dependencies
> perfect?

Maybe, but you still need to maintain the list of files somewhere. And
in any case it doesn't change the fact that the number of files must be
kept small. If the test program is not clever enough to manage large
files it should be fixed.

> For the day when our test files get long
> (some commands are going to have lots of options), it
> will make the result parser's job a lot easier to have unique-ish
> begin and end tags in the output.  Bug ID is as good as anything for
> a unique ID when it's available.  Maybe I can make that clearer, e.g.
> echo begin bug21382
> rem meaningful description of this test goes here
> ...
> echo end bug21382
> OK?

No, that's just noise. Simply output the description instead of
outputting a random id and hiding the description in a comment.

Alexandre Julliard
julliard at

More information about the wine-devel mailing list