From: Alexandre Julliard <julliard@winehq.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] user32/tests: Mark newer Win10 behaviour as broken
Message-Id: <87h8ioaxsq.fsf@winehq.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 18:33:41 +0200
In-Reply-To: <7aa7d4d7-3833-5501-5d6b-4ea77cb26fab@dawncrow.de> ("André Hentschel"'s message of "Sat, 15 Sep 2018 14:47:23 +0200")
References: <7aa7d4d7-3833-5501-5d6b-4ea77cb26fab@dawncrow.de>

André Hentschel <nerv@dawncrow.de> writes:

> Signed-off-by: André Hentschel <nerv@dawncrow.de>
> ---
>  dlls/user32/tests/monitor.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/dlls/user32/tests/monitor.c b/dlls/user32/tests/monitor.c
> index f4c1a4b17c..8ba6cc267b 100644
> --- a/dlls/user32/tests/monitor.c
> +++ b/dlls/user32/tests/monitor.c
> @@ -585,7 +585,7 @@ static void test_display_config(void)
>      paths = modes = 100;
>      ret = pGetDisplayConfigBufferSizes(0, &paths, &modes);
>      ok(ret == ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER || ret == ERROR_NOT_SUPPORTED, "got %d\n", ret);
> -    ok(modes == 0 && paths == 0, "got %u, %u\n", modes, paths);
> +    ok((modes == 0 || broken(modes == 100)) && paths == 0, "got %u, %u\n", modes, paths);

This looks like a reasonable result at least for the
ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER case, I'm not sure why you'd consider it broken.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard@winehq.org