[PATCH] ws2_32/tests: Add order-agnostic check in test_simultaneous_async_recv.

[Jinoh Kang]

On 1/11/22 06:00, Zebediah Figura (she/her) wrote:
> On 1/9/22 06:26, Jinoh Kang wrote:
>> On 1/9/22 03:37, Zebediah Figura (she/her) wrote:
>>> On 1/7/22 12:15, Jinoh Kang wrote:
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jinoh Kang <jinoh.kang.kr at gmail.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    dlls/ws2_32/tests/sock.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>>>>    1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/dlls/ws2_32/tests/sock.c b/dlls/ws2_32/tests/sock.c
>>>> index 782b1e59729..966a681e809 100644
>>>> --- a/dlls/ws2_32/tests/sock.c
>>>> +++ b/dlls/ws2_32/tests/sock.c
>>>> @@ -11520,6 +11520,8 @@ static void test_simultaneous_async_recv(void)
>>>>            const void *expect = msgstr + i * stride;
>>>>            const void *actual = resbuf + i * stride;
>>>>            DWORD size;
>>>> +        int allcmp;
>>>> +        size_t j;
>>>>              ret = WaitForSingleObject(events[i], 1000);
>>>>            ok(!ret, "wait timed out\n");
>>>> @@ -11528,6 +11530,20 @@ static void test_simultaneous_async_recv(void)
>>>>            ret = GetOverlappedResult((HANDLE)client, &overlappeds[i], &size, FALSE);
>>>>            ok(ret, "got error %u\n", GetLastError());
>>>>            ok(size == stride, "got size %u\n", size);
>>>> +
>>>> +        allcmp = 0;
>>>> +        for (j = 0; j <= num_io * stride - size; j++) allcmp |= !memcmp(msgstr + j, actual, size);
>>>> +        ok(allcmp, "returned data shall be part of original message (got %s)\n", debugstr_an(actual, size));
>>>> +
>>>
>>> I'm sorry, but this test makes no sense to me. What exactly are you trying to check here?
>>
>> It's a redundant check meant to ease debugging in case a future regression causes wine to
>> reorder overlapped I/O operations while still completing all of them.
>>
>> It can be taken out if it is deemed unnecessary.  Actually, the point of this patch is in
>> the added comment.
>>
> 
> I'm not sure I see the need for this additional test. If we complete the asyncs out of order we'll already see the original message dumped out of order; the existing test already uses debugstr_an().

Fair point, if we don't need the extra test then I guess we can mark it rejected.

-- 
Sincerely,
Jinoh Kang