Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [hbelusca] 62662: [NTDLL_APITEST]: Add braces and remove an unneeded trace.

[Thomas Faber]

This will make any failure messages in the loop useless, since you
won't know which test they're about.
Just because the tests are succeeding now doesn't mean they always will.

On 2014-04-06 17:51, [e-mail] wrote:
> @@ -188,7 +190,6 @@
>  for (i = 0; i < TestCount; i++)
>  {
>    trace("i = %d\n", i);
>    switch (TestCases[i].PrefixType)
>    {
>        case PrefixNone:

[Hermès BÉLUSCA - MAÏTO]

Ok so in fact, this think must be generalized to each time we have tests in
form of a loop :)

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Ros-dev [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Thomas Faber
Envoyé : dimanche 6 avril 2014 18:10
À : [e-mail]
Objet : Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [hbelusca] 62662: [NTDLL_APITEST]: Add
braces and remove an unneeded trace.

This will make any failure messages in the loop useless, since you won't
know which test they're about.
Just because the tests are succeeding now doesn't mean they always will.

On 2014-04-06 17:51, [e-mail] wrote:
> @@ -188,7 +190,6 @@
>  for (i = 0; i < TestCount; i++)
>  {
>    trace("i = %d\n", i);
>    switch (TestCases[i].PrefixType)
>    {
>        case PrefixNone:

_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
[e-mail]
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Thomas Faber]

Yes, it's a common pattern. The nice way is just to have all ok() prints
in the loop include the index. I'm sometimes too lazy for that though
so I add traces like this one.

On 2014-04-06 20:02, Hermès BÉLUSCA - MAÏTO wrote:
> Ok so in fact, this think must be generalized to each time we have tests in
> form of a loop :)
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Ros-dev [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Thomas Faber
> Envoyé : dimanche 6 avril 2014 18:10
> À : [e-mail]
> Objet : Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [hbelusca] 62662: [NTDLL_APITEST]: Add
> braces and remove an unneeded trace.
>
> This will make any failure messages in the loop useless, since you won't
> know which test they're about.
> Just because the tests are succeeding now doesn't mean they always will.
>
> On 2014-04-06 17:51, [e-mail] wrote:
> > @@ -188,7 +190,6 @@
> >  for (i = 0; i < TestCount; i++)
> >  {
> >    trace("i = %d\n", i);
> >    switch (TestCases[i].PrefixType)
> >    {
> >        case PrefixNone: