June 2007 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Can we start/stop services in conformance tests?
by Misha Koshelev June 12, 2007

June 12, 2007

Just wondering. It seems like I can avoid message boxes easily by using a CHT hook, but the Beep() that this particular message box uses can only be disabled with the ControlService/StartService combo. Can I use this in a non-service conformance test, or is it too much to assume that the person running the tests has administrator access (or am I allowed to check for this and simply skip the relevant tests if they don't)? I would assume as long as I am turning the service (beep) back on afterwards if it is on before and check for administrator rights this would be okay? Thanks Misha

1 0

Re: Alexandre Julliard : winecfg: Fix potential null pointer access ( spotted by Yaroslav Skorokhodov).
by Vitaly Lipatov June 12, 2007

June 12, 2007

В сообщении от 12 июня 2007 Alexandre Julliard написал(a): ... > @@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ static void update_comboboxes(HWND dialog) > winver = get_reg_key(config_key, keypath(""), "Version", ""); What wrong with call get_reg_key (,,,NULL) ? Why we need winver as NULL pointer and as empty string? > ver = get_registry_version(); > > - if (*winver == '\0') > + if (!winver || !winver[0]) > { > HeapFree(GetProcessHeap(), 0, winver); -- Lav Виталий Липатов Россия, Санкт-Петербург. www.etersoft.ru GNU! ALT Linux Team! WINE! WIKI! LaTeX! LyX!

2 1

Re: [GDI+: 4/10] graphics test
by Alexandre Julliard June 12, 2007

June 12, 2007

"Evan Stade" <estade(a)gmail.com> writes: > + wndClass.lpszClassName = TEXT(ClassName); > + > + if(!RegisterClassA(&wndClass)) return FALSE; This is broken, TEXT() doesn't work on a variable name, and it's useless since you call the A function anyway. Please don't use any of the ugly TCHAR macros in tests, there's no need for them. Either A/W doesn't matter and you can simply use plain Ascii strings, or it does matter and then you have to explicitly test both cases. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

1 0

opengl conversation on irc
by Dan Kegel June 11, 2007

June 11, 2007

A bunch of folks just had an interesting discussion about the OpenGL problem on irc. I and Roderick saved a log of the conversation, one per room: http://kegel.com/wine/opengl-wine-chat1.html (the original #winehackers discussion) http://roderick.student.utwente.nl/xorg-devel.log (after it moved to #xorg-devel) Roderick gets back from vacation July 22nd or so, and said he expects not only a nice writeup on WWN but also a full implementation by then :-) - Dan -- Wine for Windows ISVs: http://kegel.com/wine/isv

1 0

Re: rsaenh: AcquireContext can have multiple flags defined at the same time
by Mounir IDRASSI June 11, 2007

June 11, 2007

Hi, Your patch is wrong: the flags CRYPT_NEWKEYSET and CRYPT_VERIFYCONTEXT can't be mixed and if they are set together like in your patch AcquireContext should return NTE_BAD_FLAGS. You can check that using the MS implementation under windows. It's also clearly stated in MSDN that CRYPT_VERIFYCONTEXT is reserved for non persistent operations which is not the case when you create a new container. Mounir IDRASSI IDRIX - Cryptography and IT Security Experts http://www.idrix.fr Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > According to msdn a combination of flags are set, since I'm not sure > which combo's are valid I put up a FIXME. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >

2 3

Bugzilla is still annoying
by Scott Ritchie June 11, 2007

June 11, 2007

What was the status on the offer to upgrade bugzilla? Lately I've been annoyed by how it sends out emails whenever someone subscribes/unsubscribes from a bug. Is this a simple configuration setting, or do we need to upgrade? Thanks, Scott Ritchie

2 1

Re: [GDI+: 2/5] added Pens implementation, test
by Alexandre Julliard June 11, 2007

June 11, 2007

"Evan Stade" <estade(a)gmail.com> writes: > Hi, > > Changelog: > *added pen implementation > *added just enough memory and startup implementation to support pens > *defined some types > *added pen test You need to send that stuff in smaller chunks, for instance there's no reason to put startup implementation and pens in the same patch. Also things like the GpBrush definition should be part of the brush patch not the pen one. The tests can also be a separate patch. I'll commit the startup code part of the patch, have a look at this to see what a minimal patch should look like. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

1 0

Re: [PATCH 1/3] setupapi/tests: Add rudimentary tests for InstallHinfSectionA/W.
by James Hawkins June 11, 2007

June 11, 2007

On 6/10/07, Misha Koshelev <mk144210(a)bcm.edu> wrote: > Tested on WinXP and Win98 (and of course wine). > --- > dlls/setupapi/tests/Makefile.in | 1 + > dlls/setupapi/tests/install.c | 152 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 153 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > +static void test_install(LPCSTR filename) +{ + char cmdline[MAX_PATH * 2]; + LONG ret; + + sprintf(cmdline, "DefaultInstall 128 %s\\%s", CURR_DIR, filename); + + if (useW == -1) + { + HKEY hkey; + useW = 1; + _InstallHinfSection(NULL, NULL, cmdline, 0); + if (RegOpenKey(HKEY_CURRENT_USER, "Software\\Wine\\setupapitest", &hkey) == ERROR_SUCCESS) + RegCloseKey(hkey); + else + { + skip("InstallHinfSectionW is broken, using InstallHinfSectionA\n"); + useW = 0; + _InstallHinfSection(NULL, NULL, cmdline, 0); + } + } + else _InstallHinfSection(NULL, NULL, cmdline, 0); + + ret = RegDeleteKey(HKEY_CURRENT_USER, "Software\\Wine\\setupapitest"); + ok(ret == ERROR_SUCCESS, "Expected registry key Software\\Wine\\setupapitest to exist, RegDeleteKeyA returned %d\n", ret); +} + +static void test_InstallHinfSection(void) +{ + create_inf_file(inffile); + test_install(inffile); + ok(DeleteFile(inffile), "Expected source inf to exist, last error was %d\n", GetLastError()); +} This would be much simpler if you didn't use the extra test_install function. What is the point of that? Unit test functions should be atomic. Each test function should create the files it needs, and make sure the files it created are cleaned up by the end of the function (replace files with registry keys, etc). You can also look at it like this: you should be able to remove test function x without affecting any other tests, which is not the case here. The check for DeleteFile would obviously fail. Unit tests should be clear and easy to understand what's being tested, and honestly, this code confused me on my first reading. + _InstallHinfSection(NULL, NULL, cmdline, 0); Why aren't you checking the return value, or GetLastError? + skip("InstallHinfSectionW is broken, using InstallHinfSectionA\n"); How is it broken? This needs to be clarified with a comment. You really should just test only the A function in the first place though. + if (pInstallHinfSectionW && !pInstallHinfSectionA) useW = 1; Is there ever a time when InstallHinfSectionA doesn't exist? If it doesn't exist, you're going to crash if InstallHinfSectionW is 'broken': + skip("InstallHinfSectionW is broken, using InstallHinfSectionA\n"); + useW = 0; + _InstallHinfSection(NULL, NULL, cmdline, 0); -- James Hawkins

2 2

Re: [GDI+: 3/5] added graphics implementation and tests
by Dmitry Timoshkov June 10, 2007

June 10, 2007

"Evan Stade" <estade(a)gmail.com> wrote: > +GpStatus WINGDIPAPI GdipDrawLineI(GpGraphics *graphics, GpPen *pen, INT x1, > + INT y1, INT x2, INT y2) > +{ > + HGDIOBJ old_obj; > + > + if(!pen || !graphics) > + return InvalidParameter; > + > + old_obj = SelectObject(graphics->hdc, pen->gdipen); > + MoveToEx(graphics->hdc, x1, y1, NULL); > + LineTo(graphics->hdc, x2, y2); > + SelectObject(graphics->hdc, old_obj); > + > + return Ok; > +} > + > +GpStatus WINGDIPAPI GdipDrawRectangleI(GpGraphics *graphics, GpPen *pen, INT x, > + INT y, INT width, INT height) > +{ > + LOGBRUSH lb; > + HPEN hpen; > + HGDIOBJ old_obj; > + > + if(!pen || !graphics) > + return InvalidParameter; > + > + lb.lbStyle = BS_SOLID; > + lb.lbColor = pen->color; > + lb.lbHatch = 0; > + > + hpen = ExtCreatePen(PS_GEOMETRIC | PS_ENDCAP_SQUARE, (INT) pen->width, > + &lb, 0, NULL); Any reason why are you creating a new pen in GdipDrawRectangleI, and while using an existing one in GdipDrawLineI? -- Dmitry.

2 2

Re: [GDI+: 5/5] Added GdipFillPie
by Dmitry Timoshkov June 10, 2007

June 10, 2007

"Evan Stade" <estade(a)gmail.com> wrote: > +GpStatus WINGDIPAPI GdipFillPie(GpGraphics *graphics, GpBrush *brush, REAL x, > + REAL y, REAL width, REAL height, REAL startAngle, REAL sweepAngle) > +{ > + LOGBRUSH lb; > + HPEN hpen; > + HGDIOBJ old_pen, old_brush; > + REAL x_0, y_0, radStartAngle, radFinishAngle, hypotenuse, > + x_1, y_1, x_2, y_2; > + > + if(!brush || !graphics) > + return InvalidParameter; > + > + lb.lbStyle = BS_SOLID; > + lb.lbColor = brush->color; > + lb.lbHatch = 0; > + > + hpen = ExtCreatePen(PS_GEOMETRIC | PS_ENDCAP_SQUARE, 1, &lb, 0, NULL); > + > + old_pen = SelectObject(graphics->hdc, hpen); > + old_brush = SelectObject(graphics->hdc, brush->gdibrush); GdipFillPie takes only a brush in its parameters, not a pen. Shouldn't you simply select GetStockObject(NULL_PEN) instead of creating a 1 pixel pen with a color of brush? -- Dmitry.

2 1