Saulius Krasuckas wrote: > * On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Eric Pouech wrote: > >> * Andrew Riedi a écrit : >> >>> dlls/user32/tests/cursoricon.c | 201 >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> > ... > >>> +static void do_child(void) >>> +{ >>> + WNDCLASS class; >>> + MSG msg; >>> + BOOL ret; >>> + >>> + /* Register a new class. */ >>> + class.style = CS_GLOBALCLASS; >>> + class.lpfnWndProc = callback_child; >>> + class.cbClsExtra = 0; >>> + class.cbWndExtra = 0; >>> + class.hInstance = GetModuleHandle(NULL); >>> + class.hIcon = NULL; >>> + class.hCursor = NULL; >>> + class.hbrBackground = NULL; >>> + class.lpszMenuName = NULL; >>> + class.lpszClassName = "cursor_child"; >>> + >>> + SetLastError(0xdeadbeef); >>> + ret = RegisterClass(&class); >>> + ok(ret, "Failed to register window class. Error: %d\n", >>> GetLastError()); >>> > ... > >> IMO, the ok() tests in the child process are a bad idea (they won't be >> counted, nor returned as errors, by the parent process) >> > > Was Wine test framework architecture done such way on a purpose? Why > would it be a bad idea to take into account a child output also?
The architecture has been fixed since the introduction of the winetest_wait_child_process function in include/wine/test.h. -- Rob Shearman