Am Donnerstag, 5. September 2013, 23:58:57 schrieb Dmitry Timoshkov: > Jonas Maebe <jonas.ma...@elis.ugent.be> wrote: > > > The tests must pass under Wine without any additional "fixes" as they do > > > currently under Windows. If you add some code to the tests which > > > suddenly > > > makes them pass under Wine - that's not a fix, Wine implementation > > > should > > > be fixed instead. > > > > What I understood from Wolfgang's previous explanations is that there is > > currently this situation: > > > > todo_wine > > > > test1(); > > > > /* test1 fails because wine has a bug. As a side-effect, bytes will be > > left in the transmission buffer under wine, but not under windows. */ > > test2(); > > /* test2 also fails under wine because of the failure of test1 that > > influences the behaviour of test2, not because the functionality tested > > by test2 is broken. This make it impossible to individually evaluate > > test1() and test2(). */ > > > > So either > > * you add code in between that resets the state so that test2 can be run > > independently of whether test1 failed (as Wolfgang proposes), or * you > > put the tests in completely different executables so they don't influence > > each other (hopefully), or * you reorder the test so that first all the > > tests that currently work under wine are run (under the assumption that > > no regression will ever creep in), or * you require that bugs in wine > > routines are fixed in the order that they are called in that test (which > > would be strange) > How about a patch set which does: > 1/2. add a workaround to the tests to pass under Wine > 2/2. fix Wine code and simultaneously remove the workaround added by 1/2.
I don't have a fix for WaitCommEvent() does not return ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER without ovl structure And I had no plans to do so nor did I claim. I removed the side effect that this test makes the next test fail which tests the EV_TXEMPTY handling even if that it would work perfectly. So: test A test B test A fails on wine and this influences test B in such a way that it will always fail, too. I remove this dependency. Now test B succeeds. This is not because I worked arround a wine-bug in what B should test but because wine behaves correctly in this test. And test A still fails. > > But that looks even more strange if the fix contained in 2/2 could be > sent alone. Regards, -- Wolfgang Walter Studentenwerk München Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts Abteilungsleiter IT Leopoldstraße 15 80802 München