[1/2] shell32/tests: Trace the last ShellExecute command whenever a corresponding test fails.

[Alexandre Julliard]

Francois Gouget <fgouget at codeweavers.com> writes:

> On Fri, 22 Jan 2016, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
>> OTOH, it means that in silent mode you get no indication at all.
>
> ??? That's what we want right?
>
> We don't want tests that succeed to spew out thousands of lines of 
> traces because that would just bloat the logs, causing them to be 
> rejected by test.winehq.org.

On failure you should be able to see what caused the failure, even in
silent mode. With your change you'd have to re-run it with debug on, and
no guarantee that you can get the same failure to happen again.

> Sure as long as you never add any new test and only run it on platforms 
> where there are no failures then you don't get any failures and failure 
> logging does not matter one bit.
>
> But the ShellExecute() tests are very incomplete and I'm adding a bunch 
> of new ones. And that's much easier to do if I get useful logs when the 
> new test I add fails because Windows does not behave the way I expect.
>
> Besides, even if we never add any new test we will get failures. All it 
> takes is a new Windows version like Windows 10.

Of course, I'm not arguing for not logging failures. On the contrary, my
argument is that there's no reason to go out of your way to reduce
output on failure (as opposed to output on success, which I agree should
be minimized).

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard at winehq.org