Re: user32: Test destroying the cursor of a parent process.

[Robert Shearman]

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.