Sorry about this. I just re-read the patch and saw that the comment was
removed but the test was kept. Ignore this message please.
Ryan
On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > -#if 0
> > - /* I consider this a bug, if we are going to return an error, we
> > shouldn't
> > - * allocate the file pointer. But, this would make us fail the
> > text, so
> > - * I am commenting it out for now.
> > - */
> > CuAssertPtrEquals(tc, NULL, thefile);
> > -#endif
> > - apr_file_close(thefile);
> > + if (thefile) {
> > + apr_file_close(thefile);
> > + }
>
> Ummmm..... You just removed a perfectly valid complaint and test. If you
> want to have a conversation about it cool, but please don't just remove a
> comment that is pointing out a potential bug.
>
>
> > -#if 0
> > - /* I consider this a bug, if we are going to return an error, we
> > shouldn't
> > - * allocate the file pointer. But, this would make us fail the
> > text, so
> > - * I am commenting it out for now.
> > - */
> > CuAssertPtrEquals(tc, NULL, thefile);
> > -#endif
> > - /* And this too is a bug... Win32 (correctly) does not allocate
> > - * an apr_file_t, and (correctly) returns NULL. Closing objects
> > - * that failed to open is invalid. Apparently someone is doing so.
> > - */
>
> Will, please stop doing stuff like this. The whole point of the test
> suite is to catch bugs. Your changes aren't doing that. You are working
> around problems in the test suite, and letting bugs slip through on
> non-windows platforms.
>
> The comment above tells me that Windows and Unix are out of sync. It
> looks like the CuTestPtrEquals(tc, NULL, ...) should be added to both of
> these tests, and Unix should be fixed to correctly not allocate the
> pointer if the file_open fails.
>
> Ryan
>
>
>
