[PATCH] tests: Don't evaluate the todo condition when not running on Wine.

[Huw Davies]

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 03:31:14PM +0200, Sebastian Lackner wrote:
> On 21.04.2017 15:01, Huw Davies wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Huw Davies <huw at codeweavers.com>
> > ---
> > This cropped up because I wanted to write a todo condition involving
> > IsProcessDPIAware(), since this doesn't exist in XP, its address is
> > loaded dynamically.  I could have written the condition as
> > pIsProcessDPIAware && pIsProcessDPIAware(), but since I know the
> > function is always present in Wine, that's unnecessary.  Perhaps
> > more to the point, I didn't expect the current behaviour.
> > 
> >  include/wine/test.h | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/wine/test.h b/include/wine/test.h
> > index af602c0fac..fa3f90c932 100644
> > --- a/include/wine/test.h
> > +++ b/include/wine/test.h
> > @@ -123,7 +123,7 @@ extern void __winetest_cdecl winetest_trace( const char *msg, ... ) WINETEST_PRI
> >                                winetest_loop_todo(); \
> >                                winetest_end_todo())
> >  #define todo_wine               todo_if(!strcmp(winetest_platform, "wine"))
> > -#define todo_wine_if(is_todo)   todo_if((is_todo) && !strcmp(winetest_platform, "wine"))
> > +#define todo_wine_if(is_todo)   todo_if(!strcmp(winetest_platform, "wine") && (is_todo))
> >  
> >  
> >  #ifdef NONAMELESSUNION
> > 
> 
> I don't mind if its changed, but please note that it was intentional to
> check "is_todo" first. The idea was that side effects (like assigning
> variables, changing last error, ...) are applied on both Wine and Windows.
> Just think about something like:
> 
> FirstCall();
> todo_wine_if(SecondCall())
> ok(GetLastError() == ..., "\n");
> 
> With your patch applied, it will test two entirely different things on
> Windows (error from FirstCall) and Wine (error from SecondCall), which
> would also be confusing.

Yeah, I'm aware that this will make a difference in a case like this,
but we should avoid relying on side effects of the condition.  I'm
not particularly bothered either way by this patch, so I'm not going
to argue for it too much ;-)

I suppose the problem here is that it looks too much like a straight
'if', which is really isn't.

Huw.