Re: PrintDlgEx [1/7]: Add common failure checks and a trace.
Hi Gal, + * This function is necessary in order to match the behaviour on + * Windows, which seems to do all these checks when PrintDlgEx + * is called. It is also necessary in order to replicate a bug in + * PrintDlgExA, where S_OK is returned for invalid DevMode or DevNames. A test case would be a lot nicer than a comment. --Juan
Hi Juan, I indeed submitted a set of tests that included these cases. Specifically: http://www.nabble.com/PrintDlgEx-tests--7-9-%3A-Add-tests-for-PD_RETURNDEFAU... http://www.nabble.com/PrintDlgEx-tests--9-9-%3A-Add-a-test-for-PD_RETURNDEFA... Cheers, Gal On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Juan Lang <juan.lang(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Gal,
+ * This function is necessary in order to match the behaviour on + * Windows, which seems to do all these checks when PrintDlgEx + * is called. It is also necessary in order to replicate a bug in + * PrintDlgExA, where S_OK is returned for invalid DevMode or DevNames.
A test case would be a lot nicer than a comment. --Juan
Hi Gal, please bottom post here.
I indeed submitted a set of tests that included these cases. Specifically:
http://www.nabble.com/PrintDlgEx-tests--7-9-%3A-Add-tests-for-PD_RETURNDEFAU...
http://www.nabble.com/PrintDlgEx-tests--9-9-%3A-Add-a-test-for-PD_RETURNDEFA...
Yes, and they weren't committed, perhaps because they don't pass without your implementation? I don't know, I didn't try. My point is, rather than including comments that say this and that behavior was tested on Windows version xyz, you should include test cases that demonstrate that, in one of two ways: 1. As a patch with tests that currently fails, each marked with todo_wine. 2. As a patch containing both implementation and tests. If you choose the first option, your implementation patch should remove the todo_wine from the (now succeeding) tests. --Juan
participants (2)
-
Gal Topper -
Juan Lang