Hi,
While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures.
Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be
wrong, but could you please double-check?
Full results can be found at
https://newtestbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=2315
Your paranoid andr
On 8/24/2013 07:11, George Stephanos wrote:
+#define IS_HKCR(hk) ((UINT_PTR)hk > 0 && ((UINT_PTR)hk & 3) == 2)
+
Why is that important to check? In other words what depends on
particular value pattern?
Hi Andre,
According to my test plan of the registry merging project, I will add
new tests for HKCR. At first I tried to add them to the old code but I
find it become too long and hard-reading. I had to rewrite them to a
series of strict and neat tests, classified as read/write operations,
including
Stefan Leichter writes:
> fixes the crash
> http://test.winehq.org/data/1262f07609e6722a841f511445f145d941848800/linux_arm-
> sle85276/advapi32:cred.html
That's not supposed to happen, please fix the code instead.
--
Alexandre Julliard
julli...@winehq.org
Francois Gouget writes:
> I know it's bad form to test for the Windows version but I'm not sure
> what other check would be relevant here.
I think we can safely ignore such old versions at this point.
--
Alexandre Julliard
julli...@winehq.org
On 7/30/2012 19:08, Detlef Riekenberg wrote:
try2: now using EqualSid.
Thanks Nikolay for comments
-pConvertSidToStringSidA = (void *)GetProcAddress( hmod, "ConvertSidToStringSidA" );
-if( !pConvertSidToStringSidA )
-return;
-pConvertStringSidToSidA = (void *)GetProcAd
On 7/29/2012 02:24, Detlef Riekenberg wrote:
--
By by ... Detlef
---
dlls/advapi32/tests/security.c | 99 ++--
1 files changed, 94 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/dlls/advapi32/tests/security.c b/dlls/advapi32/tests/security.c
index 28e43ec
Now I ran the tests on another Linux system with wine, and there the
failing tests are skipped, so it seems I did not fully understand
what's going on here and why the tests are run on my system.
Hi,
While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures.
Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be
wrong, but could you please double-check?
Full results can be found at
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=16946
Your paranoid android
Am 13.03.2011 15:28, schrieb Nikolay Sivov:
>> to quicker see on which platforms it doesn't work
>> ---
>> dlls/advapi32/security.c |2 +-
>> dlls/advapi32/tests/registry.c | 11 ---
>> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(
to quicker see on which platforms it doesn't work
---
dlls/advapi32/security.c |2 +-
dlls/advapi32/tests/registry.c | 11 ---
2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/dlls/advapi32/security.c b/dlls/advapi32/security.c
index 1aa7990..4ee5c7b 1
Hi,
While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures.
Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be
wrong, but could you please double-check?
Full results can be found at
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=7718
Your paranoid android.
Marko Nikolic writes:
> Fixed test failures in 64-bit build.
It would be better to choose a more appropriate invalid value for a BOOL
variable.
--
Alexandre Julliard
julli...@winehq.org
Hi,
While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures.
Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be
wrong, but could you please double-check?
Full results can be found at
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=2444
Your paranoid android.
On 2/26/2010 19:17, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Nikolay Sivov writes:
On 2/26/2010 19:00, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
I'm not saying that you should remove it, but that you should set last
error to 0xdeadbeef to make it clear whether you are expecting it to be
unchanged or set to 0. Rig
Nikolay Sivov writes:
> On 2/26/2010 19:00, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
>> I'm not saying that you should remove it, but that you should set last
>> error to 0xdeadbeef to make it clear whether you are expecting it to be
>> unchanged or set to 0. Right now your test could mean either.
>>
> Prev
On 2/26/2010 19:00, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Nikolay Sivov writes:
On 2/26/2010 16:38, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Nikolay Sivov writes:
@@ -626,15 +627,22 @@ static void test_query_value_ex(void)
trace("test_query_value_ex: type set to: 0x%08x\n", type);
Nikolay Sivov writes:
> On 2/26/2010 16:38, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
>> Nikolay Sivov writes:
>>
>>
>>> @@ -626,15 +627,22 @@ static void test_query_value_ex(void)
>>> trace("test_query_value_ex: type set to: 0x%08x\n", type);
>>> ok(size == 0, "size should have been set
On 2/26/2010 16:38, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Nikolay Sivov writes:
@@ -626,15 +627,22 @@ static void test_query_value_ex(void)
trace("test_query_value_ex: type set to: 0x%08x\n", type);
ok(size == 0, "size should have been set to 0 instead of %d\n", size);
}
+
Nikolay Sivov writes:
> @@ -626,15 +627,22 @@ static void test_query_value_ex(void)
> trace("test_query_value_ex: type set to: 0x%08x\n", type);
> ok(size == 0, "size should have been set to 0 instead of %d\n",
> size);
> }
> +todo_wine ok(GetLastError() == ERROR_SUCCE
Hi Alexandre,
+if (ReadEventLogA(handle, EVENTLOG_SEQUENTIAL_READ |
EVENTLOG_FORWARDS_READ,
+ 0, buf, sizeof(EVENTLOGRECORD), &read, &needed))
+{
I don't think this is correct. The first call will always fail as the
buffer is not big enough. This now i
On 01/25/2010 12:21 PM, Vladimir Pankratov wrote:
Hello all.
Fix use of uninitialized variable in dlls/advapi32/tests/eventlog.c
changed files:
dlls/advapi32/tests/eventlog.c
Thanks.
This is the same patch as you've sent a month ago.
This doesn't happen on a clean .wine as ther
On 12/22/2009 05:29 PM, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
On 12/22/2009 20:09, Vladimir Pankratov wrote:
Hello all.
Fixed test crash in Wine.
changed files:
dlls/advapi32/tests/eventlog.c
Thanks.
Looks like you're hiding a real problem.
BTW, I don't see any crashes on Wine in test page. H
On 12/22/2009 20:09, Vladimir Pankratov wrote:
Hello all.
Fixed test crash in Wine.
changed files:
dlls/advapi32/tests/eventlog.c
Thanks.
Looks like you're hiding a real problem.
BTW, I don't see any crashes on Wine in test page. How did you test it?
Austin Lund writes:
> 2009/11/18 Alexandre Julliard :
>>
>> Testing file system flags is not a good idea, that won't work on
>> Wine. It's better to test the results of the actual call.
>>
>
> The reason this test fails for me is because I have a FAT32 volume and
> there is no ACL info stored, so
2009/11/18 Alexandre Julliard :
>
> Testing file system flags is not a good idea, that won't work on
> Wine. It's better to test the results of the actual call.
>
The reason this test fails for me is because I have a FAT32 volume and
there is no ACL info stored, so the tests:
ok(dacl != NULL,
Austin Lund writes:
> @@ -3143,6 +3146,13 @@ static void test_GetSecurityInfo(void)
> return;
> }
>
> +if (GetVolumePathName(myARGV[0], volumepathname, 50) &&
> +GetVolumeInformation(volumepathname, NULL, 0, NULL, NULL,
> &filesystemflags, NULL, 0) &&
> +(file
On 11/18/2009 09:54 AM, Austin Lund wrote:
+TCHAR volumepathname[50];
Please don't use TCHAR's.
+BOOL testacl = FALSE;
+DWORD filesystemflags;
if (!pGetSecurityInfo)
{
@@ -3143,6 +3146,13 @@ static void test_GetSecurityInfo(void)
return;
}
+if (Ge
Andreas Rosenberg wrote:
Paul Vriens wrote:
And the subject of the mail should be a bit more than just
"advapi32/tests".
Oops, sry. Read the second mail after resending in the patch
containing your first suggestions.
But I'm a bit confused about the meaning of todo_wine.
tod
Paul Vriens wrote:
>And the subject of the mail should be a bit more than just
"advapi32/tests".
Oops, sry. Read the second mail after resending in the patch
containing your first suggestions.
But I'm a bit confused about the meaning of todo_wine.
todo_wine discards output fro
Andreas Rosenberg wrote:
Added a test to verify result of LookupAccountSid
The test fails here:
security.c:1599: Test failed: LookupAccountSidA() Expected account name:
paul got: INTERACTIVE
I guess this is the tes
Ge van Geldorp wrote:
Account names are localized. Similar to existing skip in line 1806.
Changelog:
Skip some tests using English names when running on non-English locales
---
dlls/advapi32/tests/security.c | 45
++-
1 files changed, 25 insertions
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Paul Vriens
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> (Try2 removes some useless LocalFree's when NewAcl is NULL, duh).
>
> NT4 crashes at 3 distinct places. The first two we can get rid of by
> removing
> the LocalFree on failure. The third one we can skip as we can de
Hi Paul,
in your change of 21 Aug 2008,
http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/?a=commit;h=794752200131184506e84939ac13a8e68f772879
valgrind has found something to complain about:
==7145== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)
==7145==at 0x4734514: RtlAllocateHeap (heap.c:1
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 1:01 AM, Paul Bryan Roberts
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is a resubmission
>
> This patch has been reworked.
> The changes in the Wine server is withdrawn.
> Only a minimum of tests of GetFileSecurity() and SetFileSecuirty() for the
> 'file case' are provided.
>
I haven
2008/11/4 Alexandre Julliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Nicolas Le Cam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> @@ -614,7 +614,9 @@ static void test_enum_provider_types(void)
>> DWORD dwTypeCount;
>>
>> /* actual values */
>> - DWORD index = 0;
>> + /* the first provider type registry key m
Nicolas Le Cam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> @@ -614,7 +614,9 @@ static void test_enum_provider_types(void)
> DWORD dwTypeCount;
>
> /* actual values */
> - DWORD index = 0;
> + /* the first provider type registry key may not have a TypeName subkey
> + * we use the
Hi,
Should I consider second solution ?
Or perhaps adding a comment explaining why we use the second provider
type key would be enough ?
Original patch is available at [1] for reference.
[1] http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2008-October/063475.html
Bye,
Nicolas Le Cam
2008/10/20 Ni
Robert Shearman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> AccessCheck can return TRUE but still set the last error. AccessCheck
> only returns FALSE if an invalid parameter is input or there is
> something wrong with the token being checked against. It can return
> TRUE but set last error if access to the obj
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> "Paul Vriens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>> I have no clue what the test does and what's wrong with it so can we
>> leave it like this? Or should we ask Rob to go
>> way back in his memory (June 2005) ;-)
>>
I've sent a patch to cause this part of the test
"Paul Vriens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have no clue what the test does and what's wrong with it so can we
> leave it like this? Or should we ask Rob to go
> way back in his memory (June 2005) ;-)
Probably the last error check should simply be removed, since we expect
the call to succeed.
On Feb 18, 2008 2:17 PM, Alexandre Julliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > We test for a last error of 0, so we shouldn't set it to 0 before the
> > function is called. This however introduces a todo_wine.
>
> Is there any reason to believe that last erro
Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We test for a last error of 0, so we shouldn't set it to 0 before the
> function is called. This however introduces a todo_wine.
Is there any reason to believe that last error should be 0 on success?
This looks more like a broken test to me.
--
Alexandr
James Hawkins wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2008 10:34 AM, Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Added some verbosity to the GetProcAddress stuff. The skips prevent the
>> crash(es) I'm seeing on win95.
>>
>
> What is the point of this 'verbosity'? You already add the skips, so
> if a functio
On Feb 12, 2008 10:34 AM, Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Added some verbosity to the GetProcAddress stuff. The skips prevent the
> crash(es) I'm seeing on win95.
>
What is the point of this 'verbosity'? You already add the skips, so
if a function isn't available for a test, you'
This is a little offtopic, but the extra testresults might be because
the test link was posted in the comments of a well-known dutch
computer site
(in dutch) http://tweakers.net/meuktracker/15817/Wine-0.9.42.html
I thought you might want to know, and I'll try to link the test more
often there :)
James Hawkins wrote:
On 7/2/07, Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I've added some tests for OpenServiceA. Some of them crash on Wine,
but I've
opted to let them in (inside an if(0) though). The crashes happen
because we
assume that when a handle is not NULL it's correct.
The poli
On 7/2/07, Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I've added some tests for OpenServiceA. Some of them crash on Wine, but I've
opted to let them in (inside an if(0) though). The crashes happen because we
assume that when a handle is not NULL it's correct.
The policy for crashing tests is
Paul Vriens wrote:
On 6/26/07, Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
While playing with native crypt32/wintrust I added a service
(CryptSvc) to the
registry (seems needed for native and XP+). With a full trace I get
some crashes
which made me start to write some tests for services. (Rolf
On 6/26/07, Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
While playing with native crypt32/wintrust I added a service (CryptSvc) to the
registry (seems needed for native and XP+). With a full trace I get some crashes
which made me start to write some tests for services. (Rolf Kalbermatter was
alre
Francois Gouget wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Paul Vriens wrote:
[...]
as advapi32 is already linked to, we can use GetModuleHandle.
-if (!(module = LoadLibrary( "advapi32.dll" ))) return;
+if (!(module = GetModuleHandleA( "advapi32.dll" ))) return;
Well, since we're already linked to a
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Paul Vriens wrote:
[...]
> as advapi32 is already linked to, we can use GetModuleHandle.
-if (!(module = LoadLibrary( "advapi32.dll" ))) return;
+if (!(module = GetModuleHandleA( "advapi32.dll" ))) return;
Well, since we're already linked to advapi32.dll, there's no n
The advapi32 tests save a key, load it and delete the file, and all is fine.
But on nt 4.0 sp6 I'm getting a *really* weird, thing, a saved_key.LOG comes out of the blue, it
appears to get written to disc after the RegLoadKey call at line 543 of
dlls/advapi32/tests/registry.c, however
On 6/28/05, Robert Shearman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> James, the SD in the tests seems to be filled with random data. Can you
> have a go at fixing this?
>
Yea, I'll work on this till I get it fixed.
--
James Hawkins
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
ChangeSet ID: 18501
CVSROOT:/opt/cvs-commit
Module name:wine
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005/06/28 08:52:01
Modified files:
dlls/advapi32/tests: security.c
Log message:
Mark as todo a couple of tests that currently fail.
Patch
Jakob Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --- dlls/advapi32/tests/crypt.c 15 Mar 2005 19:32:38 - 1.19
> +++ dlls/advapi32/tests/crypt.c 22 Mar 2005 15:31:55 -
> @@ -138,7 +138,10 @@
> hProv = 0;
> SetLastError(0xdead
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005, Jakob Eriksson wrote:
Now I know. If the error was ERROR_NO_SUCH_PRIVILEGE, it's ok, we don't care.
Move on. NT4 has this behaviour.
If it isn't, but ret is 0, AKA LookupPrivilegeName() failed, I wan't to know
exactly
what the error was. It's a trace.
So I think the patch is v
Jakob Eriksson wrote:
Jakob Eriksson wrote:
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Jakob Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
--- dlls/advapi32/tests/security.c14 Mar 2005 17:20:58 -
1.12
+++ dlls/advapi32/tests/security.c16 Mar 2005 09:32:28 -
@@ -289,8 +289,8 @@
luid.L
Jakob Eriksson wrote:
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Jakob Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
--- dlls/advapi32/tests/security.c14 Mar 2005 17:20:58 -
1.12
+++ dlls/advapi32/tests/security.c16 Mar 2005 09:32:28 -
@@ -289,8 +289,8 @@
luid.LowPart = i;
c
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Jakob Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
--- dlls/advapi32/tests/security.c 14 Mar 2005 17:20:58 - 1.12
+++ dlls/advapi32/tests/security.c 16 Mar 2005 09:32:28 -
@@ -289,8 +289,8 @@
luid.LowPart = i;
cchName = sizeof(buf);
Jakob Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --- dlls/advapi32/tests/security.c14 Mar 2005 17:20:58 - 1.12
> +++ dlls/advapi32/tests/security.c16 Mar 2005 09:32:28 -
> @@ -289,8 +289,8 @@
> luid.LowPart = i;
> cchName = sizeof
Paul Vriens wrote:
On Fri, 2005-03-04 at 17:09, Jakob Eriksson wrote:
If we dont have permissions, we don't...
Checked for ERROR_NO_SUCH_PRIVILEGE
Weirdly, Win2k does not recognize the last two, number 28 and 29.
Evidence:
http://test.winehq.org/data/200503041000/2000_IDWASEMPTY/advapi32:securit
On Fri, 2005-03-04 at 17:09, Jakob Eriksson wrote:
> If we dont have permissions, we don't...
> Checked for ERROR_NO_SUCH_PRIVILEGE
>
> Weirdly, Win2k does not recognize the last two, number 28 and 29.
>
> Evidence:
> http://test.winehq.org/data/200503041000/2000_IDWASEMPTY/advapi32:security.txt
63 matches
Mail list logo
