[PATCH] crypt32/tests: Fix a registerOIDInfo() failure when missing elevated privileges.

[Dmitry Timoshkov]

Francois Gouget <fgouget at codeweavers.com> wrote:

> @@ -314,7 +330,7 @@ static void test_registerOIDFunction(void)
>      SetLastError(0xdeadbeef);
>      ret = CryptRegisterOIDFunction(X509_ASN_ENCODING, "CryptDllEncodeObject",
>       "1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10", bogusDll, NULL);
> -    if (!ret && GetLastError() == ERROR_ACCESS_DENIED)
> +    if (!ret && GetLastError() == ERROR_ACCESS_DENIED && !is_process_elevated())
>      {
>          skip("Need admin rights\n");
>          return;
> @@ -393,7 +409,7 @@ static void test_registerDefaultOIDFunction(void)
>      SetLastError(0xdeadbeef);
>      ret = CryptRegisterDefaultOIDFunction(0, "CertDllOpenStoreProv", 0,
>       bogusDll);
> -    if (!ret && GetLastError() == ERROR_ACCESS_DENIED)
> +    if (!ret && GetLastError() == ERROR_ACCESS_DENIED && !is_process_elevated())
>      {
>          skip("Need admin rights\n");
>          return;
> @@ -499,7 +515,7 @@ static void test_getDefaultOIDFunctionAddress(void)
>      SetLastError(0xdeadbeef);
>      ret = CryptRegisterDefaultOIDFunction(0, "CertDllOpenStoreProv", 0,
>       bogusDll);
> -    if (!ret && GetLastError() == ERROR_ACCESS_DENIED)
> +    if (!ret && GetLastError() == ERROR_ACCESS_DENIED && !is_process_elevated())
>          skip("Need admin rights\n");
>      else
>          ok(ret, "CryptRegisterDefaultOIDFunction failed: %08x\n", GetLastError());

In which cases the changes above are needed? It seems that this only
complicates things without a reason and could potentially slow down
the tests execution.

> @@ -645,7 +661,11 @@ static void test_registerOIDInfo(void)
>      info1.pszOID = test_oid;
>      SetLastError(0xdeadbeef);
>      ret = CryptUnregisterOIDInfo(&info1);
> -    ok(!ret, "should fail\n");
> +    if (!ret && GetLastError() == ERROR_ACCESS_DENIED && !is_process_elevated())
> +    {
> +        skip("Need admin rights FIXME\n");
> +        return;
> +    }    ok(!ret, "should fail\n");

This change doesn't look right. Most likely it's not needed here.

-- 
Dmitry.