Re: [4/7] comctl32/updown: Show that UDS_SETBUDDYINT switching doesn't affect behaviour for already created control
On 09/20/2009 10:02 PM, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
From 8981901ce08501229487a1fcd2d430490cb66823 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nikolay Sivov<bunglehead(a)gmail.com> Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 02:52:39 +0400 Subject: Tests to show that UDS_SETBUDDYINT switching doesn't affect behaviour for already created control
--- dlls/comctl32/tests/updown.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- 1 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
Hi Nikolay, This one (and also "[5/7] comctl32/updown: Fix control behaviour for UDS_SETBUDDYINT style") add some tests that use UDM_GETPOS32 and/or UDM_SETPOS32. These are only available as of 5.80. We are already skipping tests in updown because of this, but not these new ones yet. Any idea about the cleanest approach? -- Cheers, Paul.
Paul Vriens wrote:
On 09/20/2009 10:02 PM, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
From 8981901ce08501229487a1fcd2d430490cb66823 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nikolay Sivov<bunglehead(a)gmail.com> Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 02:52:39 +0400 Subject: Tests to show that UDS_SETBUDDYINT switching doesn't affect behaviour for already created control
--- dlls/comctl32/tests/updown.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- 1 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
Hi Nikolay,
This one (and also "[5/7] comctl32/updown: Fix control behaviour for UDS_SETBUDDYINT style") add some tests that use UDM_GETPOS32 and/or UDM_SETPOS32.
These are only available as of 5.80.
We are already skipping tests in updown because of this, but not these new ones yet. Any idea about the cleanest approach? Hi.
These could be replaced with UDM_GETPOS/UDM_SETPOS without any problems. Could you make a patch? I'm too busy now, sorry.
On 09/25/2009 10:27 AM, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
Paul Vriens wrote:
On 09/20/2009 10:02 PM, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
From 8981901ce08501229487a1fcd2d430490cb66823 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nikolay Sivov<bunglehead(a)gmail.com> Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 02:52:39 +0400 Subject: Tests to show that UDS_SETBUDDYINT switching doesn't affect behaviour for already created control
--- dlls/comctl32/tests/updown.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- 1 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
Hi Nikolay,
This one (and also "[5/7] comctl32/updown: Fix control behaviour for UDS_SETBUDDYINT style") add some tests that use UDM_GETPOS32 and/or UDM_SETPOS32.
These are only available as of 5.80.
We are already skipping tests in updown because of this, but not these new ones yet. Any idea about the cleanest approach? Hi.
These could be replaced with UDM_GETPOS/UDM_SETPOS without any problems. Could you make a patch? I'm too busy now, sorry.
Sure, but that will be after the weekend for me as well. -- Cheers, Paul.
Paul Vriens wrote:
On 09/25/2009 10:27 AM, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
Paul Vriens wrote:
On 09/20/2009 10:02 PM, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
From 8981901ce08501229487a1fcd2d430490cb66823 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nikolay Sivov<bunglehead(a)gmail.com> Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 02:52:39 +0400 Subject: Tests to show that UDS_SETBUDDYINT switching doesn't affect behaviour for already created control
--- dlls/comctl32/tests/updown.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- 1 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
Hi Nikolay,
This one (and also "[5/7] comctl32/updown: Fix control behaviour for UDS_SETBUDDYINT style") add some tests that use UDM_GETPOS32 and/or UDM_SETPOS32.
These are only available as of 5.80.
We are already skipping tests in updown because of this, but not these new ones yet. Any idea about the cleanest approach? Hi.
These could be replaced with UDM_GETPOS/UDM_SETPOS without any problems. Could you make a patch? I'm too busy now, sorry.
Sure, but that will be after the weekend for me as well.
Don't bother than, I thought about today fix, I'll do it till Monday.
participants (2)
-
Nikolay Sivov -
Paul Vriens