Re: user32: Add a test for PeekMessage((HWND)-1), make it pass under Wine.
Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
--- dlls/user32/message.c | 2 + dlls/user32/tests/msg.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ server/queue.c | 10 +++++++- 3 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
Hi Dmitry, These new tests introduce some failures on Win9x. Could you have a look?
+ ok(ret && msg.hwnd == hwnd && msg.message == WM_USER+1 && + msg.wParam == 0x1234 && msg.lParam == 0x5678, + "got ret %d hwnd %p msg %04x wParam %08lx lParam %08lx instead of TRUE/0/WM_USER/0x1234/0x5678\n", + ret, msg.hwnd, msg.message, msg.wParam, msg.lParam);
This ok() message is also not totally correct as the msg.hwnd should not be 0 but hwnd, I guess. -- Cheers, Paul.
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Paul Vriens<paul.vriens.wine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
--- dlls/user32/message.c | 2 + dlls/user32/tests/msg.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ server/queue.c | 10 +++++++- 3 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
Hi Dmitry,
These new tests introduce some failures on Win9x. Could you have a look?
It also broke the gdi32:font, gdiplus:font, and user32:edit tests for me, see: http://test.winehq.org/data/45629dc050f46988c23ded35ad18bbd8c63e4e65/wine_ae... -- -Austin
"Austin English" <austinenglish(a)gmail.com> wrote:
These new tests introduce some failures on Win9x. Could you have a look?
It also broke the gdi32:font, gdiplus:font, and user32:edit tests for me, see: http://test.winehq.org/data/45629dc050f46988c23ded35ad18bbd8c63e4e65/wine_ae...
These tests shouldn't be affected. -- Dmitry.
Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
"Paul Vriens" <paul.vriens.wine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
These new tests introduce some failures on Win9x. Could you have a look?
It's because HWND_MESSAGE support is missing in win9x.
OK, will have a shot at this. -- Cheers, Paul.
"Paul Vriens" <paul.vriens.wine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
These new tests introduce some failures on Win9x. Could you have a look?
It's because HWND_MESSAGE support is missing in win9x.
OK, will have a shot at this.
Perhaps PeekMessage() sets a reasonable last error code in that case which you can test for, and 'continue;'. -- Dmitry.
Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
"Paul Vriens" <paul.vriens.wine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
These new tests introduce some failures on Win9x. Could you have a look?
It's because HWND_MESSAGE support is missing in win9x.
OK, will have a shot at this.
Perhaps PeekMessage() sets a reasonable last error code in that case which you can test for, and 'continue;'.
Well actually, I've improved/corrected the ok() messages and it shows: msg.c:11637: Test failed: 0: got ret 1 hwnd 00000224 msg 0171 wParam 00001234 lParam 00005678 instead of TRUE/00000224/WM_USER+1/0x1234/0x5678 msg.c:11628: Test failed: 2: hwnd 00000001 expected 1, got 0 msg.c:11632: Test failed: 2: got ret 0 hwnd ABABABAB msg abababab wParam abababab lParam abababab instead of TRUE/0/WM_USER+2/0x5678/0x1234 So it's HWND_TOP that has the wrong message 0171 vs. WM_USER+1 and HWND_BOTTOM is the one that fails. I will probably sent 3 patches if you agree of course): 1. Improve/correct the ok() message 2. Add a broken() for HWND_TOP and the wrong message 3. Change "if (data[i].ret)" into "if (ret)" -- Cheers, Paul.
"Paul Vriens" <paul.vriens.wine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Perhaps PeekMessage() sets a reasonable last error code in that case which you can test for, and 'continue;'.
Well actually, I've improved/corrected the ok() messages and it shows:
msg.c:11637: Test failed: 0: got ret 1 hwnd 00000224 msg 0171 wParam 00001234 lParam 00005678 instead of TRUE/00000224/WM_USER+1/0x1234/0x5678 msg.c:11628: Test failed: 2: hwnd 00000001 expected 1, got 0 msg.c:11632: Test failed: 2: got ret 0 hwnd ABABABAB msg abababab wParam abababab lParam abababab instead of TRUE/0/WM_USER+2/0x5678/0x1234
So it's HWND_TOP that has the wrong message 0171 vs. WM_USER+1 and HWND_BOTTOM is the one that fails.
Looks like win9x behaviour in this test is completely broken, it's better IMO to detect win9x and skip the test. -- Dmitry.
Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
"Paul Vriens" <paul.vriens.wine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Perhaps PeekMessage() sets a reasonable last error code in that case which you can test for, and 'continue;'.
Well actually, I've improved/corrected the ok() messages and it shows:
msg.c:11637: Test failed: 0: got ret 1 hwnd 00000224 msg 0171 wParam 00001234 lParam 00005678 instead of TRUE/00000224/WM_USER+1/0x1234/0x5678 msg.c:11628: Test failed: 2: hwnd 00000001 expected 1, got 0 msg.c:11632: Test failed: 2: got ret 0 hwnd ABABABAB msg abababab wParam abababab lParam abababab instead of TRUE/0/WM_USER+2/0x5678/0x1234
So it's HWND_TOP that has the wrong message 0171 vs. WM_USER+1 and HWND_BOTTOM is the one that fails.
Looks like win9x behaviour in this test is completely broken, it's better IMO to detect win9x and skip the test.
I'm not too much into this, so I take your word for it. There is nothing (apart from the failures of course) that indicates Win9x (last error doesn't change). We could of course use CreateWindowExW instead of A ? -- Cheers, Paul.
"Paul Vriens" <paul.vriens.wine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
There is nothing (apart from the failures of course) that indicates Win9x (last error doesn't change).
We could of course use CreateWindowExW instead of A ?
That's an easiest solution, yes. -- Dmitry.
participants (3)
-
Austin English -
Dmitry Timoshkov -
Paul Vriens