On 11/30/2010 04:41 PM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Jacek Caban<ja...@codeweavers.com> writes:
I can see that these tests may be useful sometimes, eg. if someone is
interested in old apps that don't run on new Windows. But the honest
true is that it's not what happens with our tests. All we usually do
with old Windows or old IEs is blindly (well, not always, you do
better than that) marking them as broken. The result is that our tests
have more complicated code and are less strict. Thus my personal
strategy is different: leave win9x (or old IEs for that matter) alone
as long as they don't cause troubles. As soon as there is a trouble
with a test on a platform that I don't care about, I just disable the
whole file. This way I don't waste my time on uninteresting platforms,
the code stays cleaner and tests remain stricter, giving win9x tests a
chance to prove itself. I've already sent quite a few patches applying
this strategy to different tests.
The value of running tests on Win9x these days is certainly questionable.
We don't try to emulate the Win9x behavior anyway, except in a very few
cases (which most likely don't have tests...) so it only serves to
document historical behavior that nobody cares about any longer.
I wouldn't be opposed to switching off win9x test runs and getting rid
of the corresponding broken().
So the first thing is a patch to winetest.exe and the winetest website
and at the same time tell Greg to exclude it from 'patchwatcher' and the
batch running of the (almost) daily winetests.
Cleaning up the tests will come after that and will certainly be a nice
long janitorial task.
--
Cheers,
Paul.
