June 2008 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Re: source.google.com/git author search broken?

by John Klehm

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Dan Kegel <dank(a)kegel.com> wrote: > I've been reduced to running 'git log --author=foo' locally > because the author search on source.winehq.org > isn't returning any results. For instance, > http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/?a=search&h=HEAD&st=author&s=Julliard > returns zero hits. > Not really a huge problem, but it'd be nice if that worked again. > I've found that checking the "re" box next to the text input makes it work again for whatever reason. Yields this link: http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/?a=search&h=HEAD&st=author&s=Julliard… --John Klehm P.S. source.google.com?? ;-)

June 30, 2008

source.google.com/git author search broken?

by Dan Kegel

I've been reduced to running 'git log --author=foo' locally because the author search on source.winehq.org isn't returning any results. For instance, http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/?a=search&h=HEAD&st=author&s=Julliard returns zero hits. Not really a huge problem, but it'd be nice if that worked again.

June 30, 2008

Re: user32: Add additional tests for scroll state, make them pass under Wine

by Alex Villacís Lasso

> > Why in the world would you implement Win98 behavior over WinXP, > especially since the WinXP behavior is more logical and (probably, > haven't looked) stated on msdn? I did not implement Win98 behavior - it was already implemented that way in Wine, except for one difference that was found and changed to be consistent. Having said that, I agree that it is better to implement the WinXP behavior. I will do that in a future patch. Reece Dunn escribió: > 2008/6/30 James Hawkins <truiken(a)gmail.com>: > >> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 3:34 PM, Alex Villacís Lasso >> <a_villacis(a)palosanto.com> wrote: >> >>> ... >>> >> + ok(si.nMin == 0xdeadbeef, "si.nMin == 0x%x, expected >> 0xdeadbeef\n", si.nMin); >> + ok(si.nMax == 0xdeadbeef, "si.nMax == 0x%x, expected >> 0xdeadbeef\n", si.nMax); >> + ok(si.nPos == 0xdeadbeef, "si.nPos == 0x%x, expected >> 0xdeadbeef\n", si.nPos); >> + ok(si.nPage == 0xdeadbeef, "si.nPage == 0x%x, expected >> 0xdeadbeef\n", si.nPage); >> + >> + if (r == ERROR_NO_SCROLLBARS) behavior_winxp = TRUE; >> + if (r == 0xdeadbeef) behavior_win98 = TRUE; >> + } else { >> + if (r2) { >> + ok(si.nMin == 0, "si.nMin == %d, expected 0\n", si.nMin); >> + ok(si.nMax == 100, "si.nMax == %d, expected 100\n", si.nMax); >> + ok(si.nPos == 0, "si.nPos == %d, expected 0\n", si.nPos); >> + ok(si.nPage == 0, "si.nPage == %d, expected 0\n", si.nPage); >> + >> + behavior_winxp = TRUE; >> + } else { >> + ok(r == 0xdeadbeef, "GetScrollInfo failed, error is %ld >> (0x%08lx) expected 0xdeadbeef\n", r, r); >> + >> + behavior_win98 = TRUE; >> + } >> + } >> >> This is seriously complex (in a bad way). I think you've tried to >> factor too much into one function. You don't need to set and check >> the version, just test for both cases that are expected, like all the >> other tests: >> >> ok(si.nMin == 0 || >> si.nMin == 0xdeadbeef, "si.nMin == 0x%x, expected 0 or >> 0xdeadbeef\n", si.nMin); >> > > Francois Gouget also implemented a broken() method so you can get Wine > to do the right thing, something like: > > ok(si.nMin == 0 /* XP */ || > broken(si.nMin == 0xdeadbeef) /* 98 */ , > "si.nMin == 0x%x, expected 0 or 0xdeadbeef\n", si.nMin); > > - Reece > Thanks for the reminder. I will use it. -- perl -e '$x=2.4;print sprintf("%.0f + %.0f = %.0f\n",$x,$x,$x+$x);'

June 30, 2008

Re: user32: Add additional tests for scroll state, make them pass under Wine

by Reece Dunn

2008/6/30 James Hawkins <truiken(a)gmail.com>: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 3:34 PM, Alex Villacís Lasso > <a_villacis(a)palosanto.com> wrote: >> ... > + ok(si.nMin == 0xdeadbeef, "si.nMin == 0x%x, expected > 0xdeadbeef\n", si.nMin); > + ok(si.nMax == 0xdeadbeef, "si.nMax == 0x%x, expected > 0xdeadbeef\n", si.nMax); > + ok(si.nPos == 0xdeadbeef, "si.nPos == 0x%x, expected > 0xdeadbeef\n", si.nPos); > + ok(si.nPage == 0xdeadbeef, "si.nPage == 0x%x, expected > 0xdeadbeef\n", si.nPage); > + > + if (r == ERROR_NO_SCROLLBARS) behavior_winxp = TRUE; > + if (r == 0xdeadbeef) behavior_win98 = TRUE; > + } else { > + if (r2) { > + ok(si.nMin == 0, "si.nMin == %d, expected 0\n", si.nMin); > + ok(si.nMax == 100, "si.nMax == %d, expected 100\n", si.nMax); > + ok(si.nPos == 0, "si.nPos == %d, expected 0\n", si.nPos); > + ok(si.nPage == 0, "si.nPage == %d, expected 0\n", si.nPage); > + > + behavior_winxp = TRUE; > + } else { > + ok(r == 0xdeadbeef, "GetScrollInfo failed, error is %ld > (0x%08lx) expected 0xdeadbeef\n", r, r); > + > + behavior_win98 = TRUE; > + } > + } > > This is seriously complex (in a bad way). I think you've tried to > factor too much into one function. You don't need to set and check > the version, just test for both cases that are expected, like all the > other tests: > > ok(si.nMin == 0 || > si.nMin == 0xdeadbeef, "si.nMin == 0x%x, expected 0 or > 0xdeadbeef\n", si.nMin); Francois Gouget also implemented a broken() method so you can get Wine to do the right thing, something like: ok(si.nMin == 0 /* XP */ || broken(si.nMin == 0xdeadbeef) /* 98 */ , "si.nMin == 0x%x, expected 0 or 0xdeadbeef\n", si.nMin); - Reece

June 30, 2008

Re: user32: Add additional tests for scroll state, make them pass under Wine

by James Hawkins

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 3:34 PM, Alex Villacís Lasso <a_villacis(a)palosanto.com> wrote: > This patch adds a few tests for scrollbar behavior in Windows. It shows that > if the window was created with at least WS_VSCROLL or WS_HSCROLL styles, > WinXP returns default information for scrollbar range, but Win98 returns an > error, until first initialized. This error does not change if styles are set > or cleared before initializing ranges. On both versions, setting either > scrollbar range automatically initializes both if required (Wine still > returned error for the other scrollbar - fix included). I have tried to test > this on Win98 and WinXP-SP2, but maybe other versions are different. Could > you please test this patch? Also, is it OK to tell apart Win9x vs. WinXP > behavior in the way it is done in this patch? Once either behavior is > identified, it is consistent on all future tests, as shown by the tests. > Wine fixed to implement Win98 behavior. > Why in the world would you implement Win98 behavior over WinXP, especially since the WinXP behavior is more logical and (probably, haven't looked) stated on msdn? + if (!(hBarEnabled || vBarEnabled)) { + ok(!r2, "GetScrollInfo incorrectly succeeded\n"); + ok(( r == ERROR_NO_SCROLLBARS /* WinXP */ + || r == 0xdeadbeef /* Win98 */ ), + "GetLastError returned 0x%08lx expected 0x%08x (ERROR_NO_SCROLLBARS or 0xdeadbeef)\n", + r, ERROR_NO_SCROLLBARS); That's hideous spacing just for the sake of lining up some error codes. + ok(si.nMin == 0xdeadbeef, "si.nMin == 0x%x, expected 0xdeadbeef\n", si.nMin); + ok(si.nMax == 0xdeadbeef, "si.nMax == 0x%x, expected 0xdeadbeef\n", si.nMax); + ok(si.nPos == 0xdeadbeef, "si.nPos == 0x%x, expected 0xdeadbeef\n", si.nPos); + ok(si.nPage == 0xdeadbeef, "si.nPage == 0x%x, expected 0xdeadbeef\n", si.nPage); + + if (r == ERROR_NO_SCROLLBARS) behavior_winxp = TRUE; + if (r == 0xdeadbeef) behavior_win98 = TRUE; + } else { + if (r2) { + ok(si.nMin == 0, "si.nMin == %d, expected 0\n", si.nMin); + ok(si.nMax == 100, "si.nMax == %d, expected 100\n", si.nMax); + ok(si.nPos == 0, "si.nPos == %d, expected 0\n", si.nPos); + ok(si.nPage == 0, "si.nPage == %d, expected 0\n", si.nPage); + + behavior_winxp = TRUE; + } else { + ok(r == 0xdeadbeef, "GetScrollInfo failed, error is %ld (0x%08lx) expected 0xdeadbeef\n", r, r); + + behavior_win98 = TRUE; + } + } This is seriously complex (in a bad way). I think you've tried to factor too much into one function. You don't need to set and check the version, just test for both cases that are expected, like all the other tests: ok(si.nMin == 0 || si.nMin == 0xdeadbeef, "si.nMin == 0x%x, expected 0 or 0xdeadbeef\n", si.nMin); -- James Hawkins

June 30, 2008

richedit: do not read actual scrollbar state for scrollbar update, use internal state instead

by Alex Villacís Lasso

This is supposed to be a fix for bug #12311 . This bug involves a recursive message loop where the application forces visibility of scrollbars for the richedit control, which causes a WM_SIZE that triggers an update of the window size and re-hiding of the scrollbar. However, just after exiting the richedit winproc, the app forces visibility again, which again triggers a WM_SIZE, and so on. Native is oblivious to the fact that an external agent is messing with the scrollbar visibility, and is therefore unaffected by recursion. This patch attempts to fix this behavior in builtin and test for it. I have tried to test it on WinXP-SP2 and Win98, but testing on other platforms is helpful too. Changelog: * Use internal copy of scrollbar state instead of directly reading state from scrollbars, just as native does. * Tests for ability to externally modify scrollbars. * Test for behavior that caused recursion until builtin richedit was fixed. -- perl -e '$x=2.4;print sprintf("%.0f + %.0f = %.0f\n",$x,$x,$x+$x);'

June 30, 2008

user32: Add additional tests for scroll state, make them pass under Wine

by Alex Villacís Lasso

This patch adds a few tests for scrollbar behavior in Windows. It shows that if the window was created with at least WS_VSCROLL or WS_HSCROLL styles, WinXP returns default information for scrollbar range, but Win98 returns an error, until first initialized. This error does not change if styles are set or cleared before initializing ranges. On both versions, setting either scrollbar range automatically initializes both if required (Wine still returned error for the other scrollbar - fix included). I have tried to test this on Win98 and WinXP-SP2, but maybe other versions are different. Could you please test this patch? Also, is it OK to tell apart Win9x vs. WinXP behavior in the way it is done in this patch? Once either behavior is identified, it is consistent on all future tests, as shown by the tests. Wine fixed to implement Win98 behavior. Changelog: * Document and test differences between WinXP and Win98 scrollbar behavior * Make tests pass under Wine (Win98 behavior) -- perl -e '$x=2.4;print sprintf("%.0f + %.0f = %.0f\n",$x,$x,$x+$x);'

June 30, 2008

Re: mshtml.dll:Add IPersistPropertyBag interface to HTMLDocument

by Jacek Caban

Ivan Sinitsin wrote: > Changelog > Add IPersistPropertyBag interface to HTMLDocument > HTMLDocument shouldn't implement IPersistPropertyBag interface, which is proved by patch I've just sent. The fact that app queries for interface doesn't mean we should implement it. Please test such thing in the future. Jacek

June 30, 2008

[ANNOUNCE] ciopfs-0.2

by Marc Andre Tanner

Hi, Just in case someone is interested in a fuse based case insensitive overlay file system. I have just released ciopfs 0.2 which implements unicode support based on glib and has better error handling in out of memory situations. http://www.brain-dump.org/projects/ciopfs/ Have fun, Marc -- Marc Andre Tanner >< http://www.brain-dump.org/ >< GPG key: CF7D56C0

June 30, 2008

Re: advapi32: Fix a test failure on a non-admin XP system

by Paul Vriens

James Hawkins wrote: > Hi, > > Changelog: > * Fix a test failure on a non-admin XP system. > > dlls/advapi32/tests/registry.c | 4 +++- > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This one has puzzled me for some time. Every now and then we find an XP box that receives this ERROR_ACCESS_DENIED error. Non of the other tests for such a system indicate however that there are rights issues. We have several tests that skip tests if there are not enough rights and they would show on test.winehq.org. So maybe that patch is correct but the circumstances? -- Cheers, Paul.

June 30, 2008