[PATCH] dlls/ntdll/file.c: Setting FileAllInformation is not 'fixable'.

Max TenEyck Woodbury max at mtew.isa-geek.net
Sun Jul 25 15:22:30 CDT 2010

On 07/25/2010 01:55 PM, James McKenzie wrote:
> Andrew Eikum wrote:
>> On 07/25/2010 12:04 PM, Max TenEyck Woodbury wrote:
>>> On 07/25/2010 09:45 AM, James McKenzie wrote:
>>>> I think you missed what Nicolay and Dmitry are trying to tell you.
>>>> We are trying to implement, bug for bug, the functionality of what
>>>> Windows does. Does Windows return "STATUS_NOT_IMPLEMENTED" when this
>>>> call is made? If not, your fix is WRONG. Silencing a 'fixme' is NOT a
>>>> fix and this will be REJECTED.
>>>> If this is correct and is what Windows does, then state so. Otherwise,
>>>> withdraw the patch and fix it the right way.
>>>> James McKenzie
>>> Frankly, I do not know what Microsoft does, but the test would fail on
>>> their implementation if they did something else, so I think it is safe
>>> to assume the test is implemented properly. Given that, the fixme is
>>> wrong.
> You had very well much know what Microsoft does and care very much about
> what they do. The goal of this project, as it has been since the mid
> 1990s is to fully emulate, bug and all, the Microsoft Windows32 and
> Windows64 (since 64 bit versions of Windows arrived) APIs. Thus we have
> test cases that demonstrate what the actions are of the API/ABI. That is
> what I've been working on with several richedit functions that I need to
> have for programs that I personally use. I'm 'eating my own dog food' to
> speak.
Since I do not have (and should never have if I work on Wine) access to
Microsoft's code, I can not know what they actually do.

The test case code is what is available. I did not write this test case
code, but it has been run against Microsoft's code and has been around
long enough that it would have been corrected if it did not match their
results. I believe it is also safe to assume that the Microsoft code
does NOT produce 'fixme' messages. Unless the test case code is wrong,
there should not be a 'fixme' produced.
>>> Specifically, Nicolay asked for a test case. Since I was working from
>>> an already existing test case, his request didn't really make sense. I
>>> pointed out that there already was a test case and that should have
>>> been the end of it.
>> Well, you didn't point out which existing testcase you are talking
>> about. All that your patch does is silence a FIXME. Presumably, the
>> FIXME was placed there for a reason. Nikolay and Dmitry were pointing
>> out that silencing that FIXME might not be appropriate, and were
>> asking for you to demonstrate why that FIXME is invalid. Adding a
>> testcase or pointing to an existing testcase would accomplish this.
> I looked at the testcase. He will need to 'beef up' the testcase to
> demonstrate what functions that particular test case does. If it does
> return "not implemented" then it has to be demonstrated. I tried to
> point this out as did Nicolay and Dmitry. Otherwise, this patch will be
> rejected by AJ as an attempt to silence the fixme, which he detests
> greatly.

You obviously found the test case code. I did not write it. If it
reports failures when run against Microsoft's code, it needs fixing,
but I am not the one to fix it. As it stands, the expected result is a
'not implemented' status. Given that, any 'fixme' issued would be
>> Which existing testcase demonstrates that this behavior is valid and
>> that the FIXME is unwarranted? Does the existing testcase demonstrate
>> the full range of behavior given that parameter? Can you expand on the
>> tests to show that your implementation is always correct?
>>> Now you come along and make loud demands that the patch be rejected,
>>> without having looked at the situation carefully. Frankly, this looks
>>> very much like the activities of an 'in-crowd' trying to defend its
>>> boarders.
> No. we have stated that you have no authoritative source that you are
> correct. State this and we all will be satisfied that the patch you
> propose is correct. Right now, it appears as if the patch is just a
> 'silence the fixme' attempt. This is why your original set of patches
> was beat up. We want to know, and so do our users, that implementation
> is not complete for functions. If this is breaking a program you are
> using, you are welcome to fully implement the function. That is what we
> are all here for. Fixmes are not the way to go, but if a stub makes
> things work that is the first step of many. There are many fixmes in
> Wine code and I'm working on three of them in the richedit dll that
> directly affect the ability for me to properly use programs. I've built
> a test case for one of them, that was rejected by AJ. I'm working on a
> second test case and then will build out code from that position. This
> is how the project moves ahead.

There is no 'authoritative source'. There are only the test cases. The
'fixme' appears to be the result of slightly sloppy coding. Since the
test case shows that the proper behavior is to return an error code,
the 'fixme' is an error. The patch is intended to bring Wine's behavior
into line with that of the Microsoft code. It is not "just a 'silence
the fixme' attempt." This particular 'fixme' should never have been

As for the '_ONCE' patches, they were withdrawn because of technical
problems. I did note the objections to limiting stub reports to 'one
time only' and did cut back to only the extant limits before
withdrawing the whole set, so please get your facts straight.
>> You need to take it easy, man. No one is out to get you :)
> We really are not out to get you. I work, daily, as a software QA
> analyst. I reject perfectly good looking software because it behaves
> strangely and does not react properly to improper inputs. It is not easy
> being on that end of the process, however I also understand that writing
> proper code and having good/superb test cases makes all the difference.
> The bottom line is that there is no test case that validates your
> change. Create one. If your change is wrong, you then have the knowledge
> to state "I withdraw". I've done that, several times. If it is right,
> then add the test case, first, then the new code and state this is based
> on your test case and when you ran it in the change log. Makes us all
> happy and it furthers the state of Wine.
Here you are flat out wrong. There is a test case. I did not write it;
someone else did. It does not need to be duplicated. It shows that the
'fixme' is not appropriate. Specifically, the test is at

>> Wine has a high barrier for entry and patches are reviewed harshly. If
>> people are responding negatively to your patch, then it's likely
>> because your patch was not obviously correct. The correct way to
>> respond to this is by proving that it's correct, not asserting that
>> it's correct. You're going to have to deal with defending your
>> patches, and accept that sometimes you are wrong and sometimes other
>> people are wrong.
> Also, strongly defending your patches without authoritative information
> marks you as being arrogant. After a while, your patches will be
> ignored. That is not a good place to be in this project.
> James
I have cited an existing test case. If that is not authoritative
enough, please explain what is actually required.

- Max

More information about the wine-devel mailing list