[Bug 48142] New: shell32:appbar tests fail on some Windows 10 machines
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48142 Bug ID: 48142 Summary: shell32:appbar tests fail on some Windows 10 machines Product: Wine Version: 4.20 Hardware: x86 OS: Windows Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: shell32 Assignee: wine-bugs(a)winehq.org Reporter: madewokherd(a)gmail.com https://test.winehq.org/data/tests/shell32:appbar.html Some of the "cw" win10 machines fail in shell32:appbar. Mine happens to work when running the test on its own. I haven't been able to find a pattern, other than that none of the machines are on the current build. Without a machine that can reproduce this, I don't see a way to figure out what's going on. It would seem based on the results that appbar functionality does not work at all. One possibility is that a previous test leaves explorer in a bad state. If so, running the test on its own should succeed. It would also explain the correlation between failures here and in shell32:systray https://test.winehq.org/data/a9c4b309f6af82b624604bd0df898ad88d59ab5a/index_... -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48142 Vincent Povirk <madewokherd(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |download, source, testcase -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48142 Vincent Povirk <madewokherd(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |madewokherd(a)gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Vincent Povirk <madewokherd(a)gmail.com> --- It looks like user32:msg failures correlate as well. Minimized windows don't get their positions set properly, which also makes sense if explorer is broken. Unfortunately, that doesn't give any more information about what's breaking it. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48142 Zebediah Figura <z.figura12(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |z.figura12(a)gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Zebediah Figura <z.figura12(a)gmail.com> --- I know that user32:win does kill explorer.exe, for what I personally feel are not really worthwhile reasons. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48142 --- Comment #3 from Vincent Povirk <madewokherd(a)gmail.com> --- That would happen after these failures, though, right? -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48142 Zebediah Figura <z.figura12(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fgouget(a)codeweavers.com --- Comment #4 from Zebediah Figura <z.figura12(a)gmail.com> --- (In reply to Vincent Povirk from comment #3)
That would happen after these failures, though, right?
Presumably, yes. Unless we run tests serially without reverting, which I vaguely recall happens in some cases? -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48142 --- Comment #5 from Vincent Povirk <madewokherd(a)gmail.com> --- That could be it. In every failing case, it's <tag>-32 followed by <tag>-64. The -32 succeeds and the -64 fails. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48142 --- Comment #6 from François Gouget <fgouget(a)codeweavers.com> --- (In reply to Vincent Povirk from comment #5)
That could be it. In every failing case, it's <tag>-32 followed by <tag>-64. The -32 succeeds and the -64 fails.
Yes, the non-TestBot machines (so cw-* and fg-*) first run the 32 bit WineTest and then run the 64 bit WineTest. That's because for these machines a "revert" means restoring the Windows partition from backup so it's a bit on the heavy side. That's not the case for the TestBot VMs. Those perform a revert between each WineTest run. That said the tests should try not to completely break the test environment: if a 32 bit test unit kills explorer.exe that could just as well impact the other 32 bit test units that follow. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48142 --- Comment #7 from Esme Povirk <madewokherd(a)gmail.com> --- Instead of killing explorer, could we create a new desktop that doesn't have a shell? -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48142 --- Comment #8 from Esme Povirk <madewokherd(a)gmail.com> --- I sent a patch that does that: https://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2020-December/178798.html -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48142 Esme Povirk <madewokherd(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Regression SHA1| |bc2e193d9ade47660e17bf720ec | |68d32e9984846 Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #9 from Esme Povirk <madewokherd(a)gmail.com> --- I think this is fixed? At least, I don't see appbar failures in recent builds on test.winehq.org, and at least one of the machines that had been showing failures ran the tests. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48142 Esme Povirk <madewokherd(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed by SHA1| |bc2e193d9ade47660e17bf720ec | |68d32e9984846 Regression SHA1|bc2e193d9ade47660e17bf720ec | |68d32e9984846 | -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48142 Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |CLOSED --- Comment #10 from Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> --- Closing bugs fixed in 6.0-rc5. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
participants (1)
-
WineHQ Bugzilla