On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Andriy Palamarchuk wrote: > --- "Dimitrie O. Paun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I have a number of observations: > > -- we should rename wt_helper.h to something like > > wine/tests.h > > I'm open for suggestions. I used this name to avoid > name clashes with Perl winetest framework. > BTW, wt = Wine Test.
Well, yeah, I figured that much, but is ugly like hell. > I'd prefer more recognizable name than "test.h". It's not test.h, it's wine/tests.h which is both clean, recognizable, and pretty. In code, you have: #include "wine/tests.h" > > -- maybe we should not use main as the main > > funtion, > > but rather something like 'test'. This way we > > can > > provide the main and have another level of > > indirection which can be put to good use. > > (like we should not need the explicit > > end_tests()) > > -- another thing we can do is to have the tests in > > > > functions named testXXX. This way we can use nm > > to generate the main function, and so we can > > put > > a bunch of tests in the same executable. > > > Whether we'll use these ideas depends on architecture > of the whole testing process. Duh! :) But I thought that's what we're working on...:) > > -- wt_helper.h should include tchar.h, and > > redefine > > _T to call a function to transform the string > > to > > Unicode if need be. This way we get rid of the > > compiler requirement. > > Using function instead of macro won't work in all the > cases, e.g. in this one: > > _TCHAR buf[100] = _T("foo") So, don't do that. Francois showed a number of good ways of doing it. In any case, I think we should discourage the use of explicit strings in the tests, for reasons outlined by Alexandre. I think we should use a teststr() call instead of most hardcoded strings. > > -- I still think my teststr() idea is worth doing. > > Do you want an implementation? > > I like the idea, but do not need such Unicode strings > generator for my test :-) Can you implement it with a > small real test which shows advantages of teststr()? Fine, I'll try to do that, it's just that I'm _very_ busy at the moment. I guess this means more late nights... :) > > -- Why do you do: > > _T(__FILE__) > > Files are ASCII, no need to _T them. > > __FILE__is a macro which is expanded to file name. I > use _T with it for simplicity - to have the same > ASCII/Unicode mode processing for everything. > Otherwise I'd have to explicitely call ASCII functions > for file names processing, probably do A->W > conversion. But we don't need it. I know what __FILE__ does, it returns an ASCII string, so we should just work with it as such. -- Dimi.