[PATCH v2 1/6] ntoskrnl.exe/tests: Silent a todo_wine failing test after a while.

[Zebediah Figura (she/her)]

On 6/3/21 10:42 AM, Rémi Bernon wrote:
> On 6/3/21 5:40 PM, Zebediah Figura (she/her) wrote:
>> On 6/3/21 7:55 AM, Rémi Bernon wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Rémi Bernon <rbernon at codeweavers.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> v2: * Fix spurious failures first.
>>>
>>>       * Don't try NULL preparsed data, it crashes old windows versions.
>>>
>>>       * Squash new HidP_Get*Caps tests together, add a few more with
>>>         specific caps lookup.
>>>
>>>    dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/tests/driver_hid.c | 3 ++-
>>>    1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/tests/driver_hid.c
>>> b/dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/tests/driver_hid.c
>>> index 44ec1b09526..79b3e708752 100644
>>> --- a/dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/tests/driver_hid.c
>>> +++ b/dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/tests/driver_hid.c
>>> @@ -103,6 +103,7 @@ static const unsigned char report_descriptor[] =
>>>    static NTSTATUS WINAPI driver_internal_ioctl(DEVICE_OBJECT *device,
>>> IRP *irp)
>>>    {
>>> +    static int test_failed = 0;
>>>        IO_STACK_LOCATION *stack = IoGetCurrentIrpStackLocation(irp);
>>>        const ULONG in_size =
>>> stack->Parameters.DeviceIoControl.InputBufferLength;
>>>        const ULONG out_size =
>>> stack->Parameters.DeviceIoControl.OutputBufferLength;
>>> @@ -176,7 +177,7 @@ static NTSTATUS WINAPI
>>> driver_internal_ioctl(DEVICE_OBJECT *device, IRP *irp)
>>>            case IOCTL_HID_READ_REPORT:
>>>                ok(!in_size, "got input size %u\n", in_size);
>>> -            todo_wine ok(out_size == 2, "got output size %u\n",
>>> out_size);
>>> +            if (test_failed++ < 10) todo_wine ok(out_size == 2, "got
>>> output size %u\n", out_size);
>>>                ret = STATUS_NOT_IMPLEMENTED;
>>>                break;
>>>
>>
>> Does this test fail on Windows? Can you provide a link to the test results?
>>
> 
> It's not failing on windows, but the todo_wine are spamming the test
> results, making the test be reported as failing because too much data is
> printed.
> 

Shame on me for introducing that test and never fixing it, but maybe we 
could just fix it the right way instead?