Re: Better test for visible desktop, should be working on all platforms.

[Dmitry Timoshkov]

"Jakob Eriksson" <jakov(a)vmlinux.org> wrote:
> I took this test from the gdi32 conformance tests, since it fails
> reliably when run under a non visible desktop, regardless of platform.
>
> It's not pretty, but I don't have an NT4 to test with, so I didn't want 
> to change
> anything. Later I can refactor it into exactly the failing part.

Did you consider implementing the approach Robert Shearman has pointed out?

-- 
Dmitry.

Better test for visible desktop, should be working on all platforms.

[Dmitry Timoshkov]

"Dmitry Timoshkov" <dmitry(a)baikal.ru> wrote:
> > It's not pretty, but I don't have an NT4 to test with, so I didn't want 
> > to change
> > anything. Later I can refactor it into exactly the failing part.
>
> Did you consider implementing the approach Robert Shearman has pointed out?

Here is another way for testing for a visible desktop which just came
to my mind (based on the EMF test failure analysis and the description
from http://www.codeproject.com/gdi/cliprgnguide.asp):

static int running_on_visible_desktop ()
{
    BOOL visible;
    HWND desktop;
    HDC hdc;
    HRGN hrgn;
    RECT rc;

    desktop = GetDesktopWindow();
    hdc = GetDC(desktop);
    hrgn = CreateRectRgn(0, 0, 0, 0);
    GetRandomRgn(hdc, hrgn, SYSRGN);

    visible = GetRgnBox(hrgn, &rc) != NULLREGION;

    DeleteObject(hrgn);
    ReleaseDC(desktop, hdc);

    return visible;
}

-- 
Dmitry.

Better test for visible desktop, should be working on all platforms.

[Jakob Eriksson]

Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> "Dmitry Timoshkov" <dmitry(a)baikal.ru> wrote:
> > > It's not pretty, but I don't have an NT4 to test with, so I didn't want 
> > > to change
> > > anything. Later I can refactor it into exactly the failing part.
> >
> > Did you consider implementing the approach Robert Shearman has pointed out?
>
> Here is another way for testing for a visible desktop which just came
> to my mind (based on the EMF test failure analysis and the description
> from http://www.codeproject.com/gdi/cliprgnguide.asp):
>
> static int running_on_visible_desktop ()
> {
>    BOOL visible;
>    HWND desktop;
>    HDC hdc;
>    HRGN hrgn;
>    RECT rc;
>
> desktop = GetDesktopWindow();
>    hdc = GetDC(desktop);
>    hrgn = CreateRectRgn(0, 0, 0, 0);
>    GetRandomRgn(hdc, hrgn, SYSRGN);
>
> visible = GetRgnBox(hrgn, &rc) != NULLREGION;
>
> DeleteObject(hrgn);
>    ReleaseDC(desktop, hdc);
>
> return visible;
> }

Go for it, could you send a patch to wine-cvs?


regards,
Jakob

Better test for visible desktop, should be working on all platforms.

Simple qu, since I'm not that familiar with Wine yet.

How can I run a desktop under wine? Is it poss to have two or more apps  
running concurrently in the same wine session?

TIA.


On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 21:11:59 +0800, Dmitry Timoshkov <dmitry(a)baikal.ru>  
wrote:
> "Dmitry Timoshkov" <dmitry(a)baikal.ru> wrote:
> > > It's not pretty, but I don't have an NT4 to test with, so I didn't  
> > > want
> > > to change
> > > anything. Later I can refactor it into exactly the failing part.
> >
> > Did you consider implementing the approach Robert Shearman has pointed  
> > out?
>
> Here is another way for testing for a visible desktop which just came
> to my mind (based on the EMF test failure analysis and the description
> from http://www.codeproject.com/gdi/cliprgnguide.asp):
>
> static int running_on_visible_desktop ()
> {
>     BOOL visible;
>     HWND desktop;
>     HDC hdc;
>     HRGN hrgn;
>     RECT rc;
>
> desktop = GetDesktopWindow();
>     hdc = GetDC(desktop);
>     hrgn = CreateRectRgn(0, 0, 0, 0);
>     GetRandomRgn(hdc, hrgn, SYSRGN);
>
> visible = GetRgnBox(hrgn, &rc) != NULLREGION;
>
> DeleteObject(hrgn);
>     ReleaseDC(desktop, hdc);
>
> return visible;
> }

-- 
Using Opera e-mail on Gentoo Linux