[PATCH 2/5] wait until all data from earlier test has been written in test_waittxempty
wine at stwm.de
Mon Sep 9 10:24:21 CDT 2013
Am Sonntag, 8. September 2013, 11:32:26 schrieb Francois Gouget:
> On Thu, 5 Sep 2013, Wolfgang Walter wrote:
> > To see that my later patches are needed you must modify the test a little
> > bit:
> > - dlls/kernel32/tests/comm.c.old 2013-09-05 13:40:10.275757373 +0200
> > +++ dlls/kernel32/tests/comm.c 2013-09-05 13:40:06.779074398 +0200
> > @@ -844,6 +844,8 @@
> > after - before, bytes, baud);
> > /* don't wait for WriteFile completion */
> > + Sleep(2000);
> > +
> > S(U(ovl_wait)).Offset = 0;
> > S(U(ovl_wait)).OffsetHigh = 0;
> > ovl_wait.hEvent = CreateEvent(NULL, TRUE, FALSE, NULL);
> I did not look at the specifics of this case but I agree with the
> general principle of making tests reasonably independent from each
> other. This way we know exactly what works and what does not. It's not
> an absolute rule but we do try for that already when we reset LastError
> between tests for instance, or in some other cases when we delete some
> resource and recreate it for each test.
> I guess the above is not really the patch that you propose but I'll
> still comment on it: we also want the tests to run as fast as possible
> so Sleep() is bad. However if we were to Sleep() only if the previous
> test failed I think that would be ok.
Indeed this patch is not the proposed one. It is a variation of a test to show
a different problem.
My patch to make two tests more independed from each other only sleeps if the
first test fails.
Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts
More information about the wine-devel