2011/8/30 Octavian Voicu <octavian.vo...@gmail.com>: > 2011/8/30 Frédéric Delanoy <frederic.dela...@gmail.com>: >> You don't test the result of your 'mkdir "foo:"'. You can't know from >> the test whether the dir was created and removed, or never existed. > > That's the whole point! I tested in cmd prompt on a Windows XP machine > (and I assume all Windows versions act the same in this regard), and > mkdir refuses to create a directory with colons in its name (same goes > with explorer). Even if it might be possible to create a directory > with a colon in its name by using some API, it's not relevant.
OK > So this test is strictly for Wine -- but it does have to pass on > Windows too. The test I wrote is designed to fail (with a stack > overflow) if you revert my earlier patch. It's not like any (sane) > Windows application will be trying to create directories with colons > in their names, but if it happens that the users has such a directory, > you don't want Wine to go crashing because of it. > >> You should use something like "if exist ... echo blablabla", or a 'dir >> /b' in a directory to verify it's not created. >> Be aware that error messages are generally lost/discarded, so you have >> to test differently > > I don't see the point of actually testing if the directory was > created, because it will always fail on Windows (and you can't really > mark this failure as broken, because it's standard Windows behavior). My point was simply to make sure that subsequent wine patches, maybe a year or two from now, won't make it "work" again (think regression) I never talked about marking it as broken (it obviously doesn't work on any windows), just that running a plain "mkdir foo:" and not checking the expected outcome is pointless IMHO (besides detecting crash/overflows don't occur again in wine) Maybe a simple "if exist foo: (echo wine is broken)" would be sufficient. This way you would detect quickly it wine somehow makes it "work" again. Frédéric