Am 26.06.2011 18:41, schrieb Vincas Miliūnas:
Done - http://source.winehq.org/patches/data/75756
+static void test_raw_input_functions(void) +{ + if (pGetRawInputData) + test_get_raw_input_data(); + else + win_skip("GetRawInputData is not available\n"); + + if (pRegisterRawInputDevices) + test_register_raw_input_devices(); + else + win_skip("RegisterRawInputDevices is not available\n"); + + if (pGetRawInputBuffer) + test_get_raw_input_buffer(); + else + win_skip("GetRawInputBuffer is not available\n"); + + if (pDefRawInputProc) + test_def_raw_input_proc(); + else + win_skip("DefRawInputProc is not available\n"); + + if (pGetRawInputDeviceList) + test_get_raw_input_device_list(); + else + win_skip("GetRawInputDeviceList is not available\n"); + + if (pGetRawInputDeviceInfoA && pGetRawInputDeviceList) + test_get_raw_input_device_info_a(); + else + win_skip("GetRawInputDeviceInfoA and pGetRawInputDeviceList are not available\n"); + + if (pGetRawInputDeviceInfoW && pGetRawInputDeviceList) + test_get_raw_input_device_info_w(); + else + win_skip("GetRawInputDeviceInfoW and pGetRawInputDeviceList are not available\n"); + + if (pGetRegisteredRawInputDevices && pRegisterRawInputDevices) + test_get_registered_raw_input_devices(); + else + win_skip("GetRegisteredRawInputDevices and pRegisterRawInputDevices are not available\n"); + + if (pRegisterRawInputDevices && pGetRawInputData && pDefRawInputProc && pGetRawInputBuffer && pSendInput) + test_get_raw_input_data_simulation(); + else + win_skip("Functions required to perform raw input simulation are not available\n"); +}
1.) No, i thought about something like: static void test_get_raw_input_data_simulation(void) { HWND hWnd; MSG msg; WNDCLASSA wclass; HANDLE hInstance = GetModuleHandleA( NULL ); BOOL ret; INPUT inputs[2]; UINT timer, size, ret2; RAWINPUT *raw; if(!pGetRawInputData) { win_skip( "some reason\n" ); return; } wclass.lpszClassName = "GetRawInputDataTestClass"; .... 2.) Why does patch 3/3 not remove todo_wines from the test? 3.) I'm not sure about the way you splitted the patches. Splitting is good and sending tests first is often a good idea, but in 2/3 you introduce dead code which only later get's used in 3/3. Maybe you should split per function if possible. -- Best Regards, André Hentschel