[2/3] cmd/tests: Add support for todo_wine constructions (try 2)

[Frédéric Delanoy]

2011/6/14 Jacek Caban <jacek at codeweavers.com>:
> On 6/14/11 3:04 PM, Frédéric Delanoy wrote:
>>
>> 2011/6/14 Jacek Caban<jacek at codeweavers.com>:
>>>
>>> On 6/14/11 10:55 AM, Frédéric Delanoy wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 011/6/14 Jacek Caban<jacek at codeweavers.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Frédéric,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/13/11 10:19 PM, Frédéric Delanoy wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +        }else if(err) {
>>>>>> +            if (!is_todo_wine)
>>>>>> +                ok(0, "unexpected char 0x%x position %d in line %d
>>>>>> (got
>>>>>> '%.*s', wanted '%.*s')\n",
>>>>>> +                   *err, (int)(err-out_ptr), line,
>>>>>> (int)(out_nl-out_ptr),
>>>>>> +                   out_ptr, (int)(exp_nl-exp_ptr), exp_ptr);
>>>>>> +            else
>>>>>> +                todo_wine
>>>>>> +                ok(0, "unexpected char 0x%x position %d in line %d
>>>>>> (got
>>>>>> '%.*s', wanted '%.*s')\n",
>>>>>> +                   *err, (int)(err-out_ptr), line,
>>>>>> (int)(out_nl-out_ptr),
>>>>>> out_ptr,
>>>>>> +                   (int)(exp_nl-exp_ptr-sizeof(todo_wine_cmd)),
>>>>>> exp_ptr+sizeof(todo_wine_cmd));
>>>>>
>>>>> You may change tests to ok(!err, ....) here and make this else
>>>>> unconditional
>>>>> to avoid having ok(TRUE, ...) tests later.
>>>>
>>>> Which else are you talking about?
>>>>
>>>> The following ok(TRUE,...) serves when there's a todo_wine which has
>>>> "succeeded", to get messages like "Test succeeded inside todo block:
>>>> match at line XXX"
>>>> Without it (i.e. without at least one "true" OK), successful todos
>>>> aren't caught, as Dan Kegel pointed out (and I've verified).
>>>
>>> I was talking about something like this:
>>>
>>> }else {
>>>    if(!is_todo_wine)
>>>        ...
>>>    else todo_wine
>>>        ok(!err, ...);
>>> }
>>>
>>> If the tests succeeded, err will be NULL, so this ok will produce "Test
>>> succeeded inside todo block" error.
>>
>> I tried what you say but it didn't work: the test runner doesn't even
>> go that far, and doesn't detect any todo, just says something like
>>
>> batch: 44 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 0 failures), 0 skipped.
>>
>> instead of the>  100 tests (with a couple of todos for the mkdir
>> patch) it should make.
>>
>> Simply replacing "ok(0,...)" and "ok(TRUE,...)" by "ok(!res,...)"
>> works,
>
> Sure it works. But... what were your previous sentences about?
see below

>>  but is not more clear IMHO
>
> ok(TRUE, ...) simply doesn't make sense. All we care is that tests don't
> fail. A number of succeeded tests doesn't matter and ok(TRUE, ...) is just
> an useless expression. todo_wine ok(TRUE, ...) makes some sense, but still,
> it looks hackish, so I'd rather avoid it.

I agree. And the "ok(0, ...)" you wrote some time ago don't look less
hackish IMHO ;).
The ok(TRUE,...) is used so that, when you have 123 and you expect
@todo_wine at 123, you get warned about it  ("Test succeeded inside todo
block").

Without it, I couldn't find a way to get it working.
I may be incredibly stupid, but I think I still don't get what changes you want:

Do you want this?

        if(err == out_nl) {
            if (!is_todo_wine)
                ok(!err, "unexpected end of line %d (got '%.*s',
wanted '%.*s')\n",
                   line, (int)(out_nl-out_ptr), out_ptr,
(int)(exp_nl-exp_ptr), exp_ptr);
            else
                todo_wine
                ok(!err, "unexpected end of line %d (got '%.*s',
wanted '%.*s')\n",
                   line, (int)(out_nl-out_ptr), out_ptr,
                   (int)(exp_nl-exp_ptr-sizeof(todo_wine_cmd)),
exp_ptr+sizeof(todo_wine_cmd));
        }else if(err) {
            if (!is_todo_wine)
                ok(!err, "unexpected char 0x%x position %d in line %d
(got '%.*s', wanted '%.*s')\n",
                   *err, (int)(err-out_ptr), line, (int)(out_nl-out_ptr),
                   out_ptr, (int)(exp_nl-exp_ptr), exp_ptr);
            else
                todo_wine
                ok(!err, "unexpected char 0x%x position %d in line %d
(got '%.*s', wanted '%.*s')\n",
                   *err, (int)(err-out_ptr), line,
(int)(out_nl-out_ptr), out_ptr,
                   (int)(exp_nl-exp_ptr-sizeof(todo_wine_cmd)),
exp_ptr+sizeof(todo_wine_cmd));
        }else {
            if(!is_todo_wine)
               ok(!err, "match at line %d\n", line);
            else
               todo_wine ok(!err, "match at line %d\n", line);
        }

Or did I misunderstand in

+        }else if(err) {
+            if (!is_todo_wine)
+                ok(0, "unexpected char 0x%x position %d in line %d
(got '%.*s', wanted '%.*s')\n",
+                   *err, (int)(err-out_ptr), line, (int)(out_nl-out_ptr),
+                   out_ptr, (int)(exp_nl-exp_ptr), exp_ptr);
+            else
+                todo_wine
+                ok(0, "unexpected char 0x%x position %d in line %d
(got '%.*s', wanted '%.*s')\n",
+                   *err, (int)(err-out_ptr), line,
(int)(out_nl-out_ptr), out_ptr,
+                   (int)(exp_nl-exp_ptr-sizeof(todo_wine_cmd)),
exp_ptr+sizeof(todo_wine_cmd));
"You may change tests to ok(!err, ....) here and make this else
unconditional to avoid having ok(TRUE, ...) tests later."

the "make this else unconditional" to mean "remove the if(err)", and
"to avoid having ok(TRUE, ...) tests late" to mean "delete the last
else clause containing the 'ok(TRUE, ...)'  calls, and remove the c" ?

I must admit I'm a bit confused

Frédéric