On Sun, 21 Sep 2008, Michael Karcher wrote: > Am Sonntag, den 21.09.2008, 02:15 +0200 schrieb Erik Inge Bolsø: > > + ok(1, "%s\n", content); > Please use trace(...) instead of ok(1,...). Also, outputting a string > with newline characters might be irritating, especially as one might > need a hex viewer to see the difference between the CR-only and CR/LF > variant. You might want to have > trace("test_GetPrivateProfileStringA: Run %d\n");
Oh, that ok is just a debugging relic of my rewrite. I meant to remove it. Nice catch. > Instead of a run number, you also might want to pass a description like > "CR only" or "CR/LF". I suppose. > > - ok(ret == 18, "Expected 18, got %d\n", ret); > > + ok(ret == 18, "Run %d: Expected 18, got %d\n", run, ret); > Questions to everyone: I suppose if the trace above indicates the run > number, these modifications are unneded. Do you agree? Surely it must be better to see where the error is right away, instead of having to do a +trace? Without modifying the test messages, we'll only get a line number, and no mention of which data caused the test to fail. -- -erik http://useofwords.blogspot.com/