On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 23:46 -0600, James Hawkins wrote:
> On 2/7/07, Misha Koshelev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Well, by definition, that's not really a conformance test because it
> > > doesn't conform to windows. Did you make the property public and add
> > > the property to the Propert
On 2/7/07, Misha Koshelev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, by definition, that's not really a conformance test because it
> doesn't conform to windows. Did you make the property public and add
> the property to the Property table?
>
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa370912.aspx
>
> Well, by definition, that's not really a conformance test because it
> doesn't conform to windows. Did you make the property public and add
> the property to the Property table?
>
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa370912.aspx
>
Aha, google search figured it out:
* Property name A
> Well, by definition, that's not really a conformance test because it
> doesn't conform to windows. Did you make the property public and add
> the property to the Property table?
>
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa370912.aspx
>
First of all, I added the Property to the Property tab
install validation, having a
full
> > > > > > features table, installing some features, etc.) which would make a
> > > > > > separate function easy to implement and it does not really seem
> > > > > > necessary to copy and paste the whole test_MsiInstal
; kosher way to make a very simple MSI file that just, say, writes a
> > > > > > registry value (without doing costing, install validation, having a
> > > > > > full
> > > > > > features table, installing some features, etc.) which would make
dation, having a full
> > > > features table, installing some features, etc.) which would make a
> > > > separate function easy to implement and it does not really seem
> > > > necessary to copy and paste the whole test_MsiInstallProduct (or
> > > > similar)
g some features, etc.) which would make a
> > > > separate function easy to implement and it does not really seem
> > > > necessary to copy and paste the whole test_MsiInstallProduct (or
> > > > similar) function just to check UI level processing.
> > &g
ing, install validation, having a full
> > features table, installing some features, etc.) which would make a
> > separate function easy to implement and it does not really seem
> > necessary to copy and paste the whole test_MsiInstallProduct (or
> > similar) function jus
e, installing some features, etc.) which would make a
> > separate function easy to implement and it does not really seem
> > necessary to copy and paste the whole test_MsiInstallProduct (or
> > similar) function just to check UI level processing.
> >
> > Changelog:
> &
o check UI level processing.
Changelog:
* msi: Make MsiInstallProduct conformance test depend on proper UI
level processing.
You need to put whatever you're trying to test into a new test
function. As-is, it's not clear what you're testing and we need to
keep the tests l
On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 08:33 -0600, Misha Koshelev wrote:
> Hi, just wanted to double-check with msi ppl and other wine developers
> if it's okay to add my conformance test to the test_MsiInstallProduct
> function. My reasons for doing this versus a completely separate test
> function are as follows
, say, kernel32 crosstests
compile file), so if anyone can crosstest it for me that would be
great :)
From 55b39a67676e2bd8c01c0b17b677298c9d22a46c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Misha Koshelev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 08:10:19 -0600
Subject: msi: Make MsiInstallProduct conformance tes
13 matches
Mail list logo
