April 2016 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Re: user32/tests: Add some tests for dialog owner disabled state. (v3)

by Alexandre Julliard

Dmitry Timoshkov <dmitry(a)baikal.ru> writes: > Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> wrote: >> Maybe it would still be testing the same thing, but moving the tests out >> of WM_INITDIALOG would make things clearer. > > That would complicate things for no reason and wouldn't chage anything. > For instance moving the tests out of WM_INITDIALOG to WM_ENTERIDLE would > make the tests actually test different behaviour than it was originally > intended. > >> Avoiding changing the window >> creation of existing tests would be a good thing too. > > Since I am an original author of existing tests I don't think that adding > another hoop to jump trough (make the tests cope with NULL parent) would > change anything for existing tests since this wouldn't change the dialog > styles. Never mind then. Could you please resubmit at least with the todos fixed? -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

April 12, 2016

Re: user32/tests: Add some tests for dialog owner disabled state. (v3)

by Dmitry Timoshkov

Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> wrote: > >> > Regarding any possible additional tests or moving some logic around: > >> > as the patch subject says these tests don't pretend to be perfect or > >> > exhaustive set of tests, they simply test some things I was interested > >> > in, and as always with every test there are things that could be added > >> > or changed. > >> > >> Of course, but could you please fix the few things that Jacek mentioned, > >> and update the todos that succeed now? Thanks. > > > > I can resend with just todos removed if that's ok, since changing the things > > that Jacek pointed out (adding the tests after EndDialog, moving the tests > > into another place or removing a test that makes sure that window state has > > not really changed) has no influence on the things being actually tested. > > Maybe it would still be testing the same thing, but moving the tests out > of WM_INITDIALOG would make things clearer. That would complicate things for no reason and wouldn't chage anything. For instance moving the tests out of WM_INITDIALOG to WM_ENTERIDLE would make the tests actually test different behaviour than it was originally intended. > Avoiding changing the window > creation of existing tests would be a good thing too. Since I am an original author of existing tests I don't think that adding another hoop to jump trough (make the tests cope with NULL parent) would change anything for existing tests since this wouldn't change the dialog styles. -- Dmitry.

April 12, 2016

Re: user32/tests: Add some tests for dialog owner disabled state. (v3)

by Alexandre Julliard

Dmitry Timoshkov <dmitry(a)baikal.ru> writes: > Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> wrote: > >> > Regarding any possible additional tests or moving some logic around: >> > as the patch subject says these tests don't pretend to be perfect or >> > exhaustive set of tests, they simply test some things I was interested >> > in, and as always with every test there are things that could be added >> > or changed. >> >> Of course, but could you please fix the few things that Jacek mentioned, >> and update the todos that succeed now? Thanks. > > I can resend with just todos removed if that's ok, since changing the things > that Jacek pointed out (adding the tests after EndDialog, moving the tests > into another place or removing a test that makes sure that window state has > not really changed) has no influence on the things being actually tested. Maybe it would still be testing the same thing, but moving the tests out of WM_INITDIALOG would make things clearer. Avoiding changing the window creation of existing tests would be a good thing too. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

April 12, 2016

Re: [PATCH 2/3] ole32: Fix memory leak in CompositeMonikerImpl_Construct.

by Alexandre Julliard

Alex Henrie <alexhenrie24(a)gmail.com> writes: > @@ -1848,8 +1848,10 @@ CompositeMonikerImpl_Construct(IMoniker **ppMoniker, IMoniker *pmkFirst, IMonike > IMoniker_Release(This->tabMoniker[This->tabLastIndex-1]); > > This->tabMoniker[This->tabLastIndex-1]=tempMk; > - } else > + } else{ > + HeapFree(GetProcessHeap(), 0, This); > return res; > + } You'd need to free the contents too, at least This->tabMoniker and its references. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

April 12, 2016

Re: user32/tests: Add some tests for dialog owner disabled state. (v3)

by Dmitry Timoshkov

Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> wrote: > > Regarding any possible additional tests or moving some logic around: > > as the patch subject says these tests don't pretend to be perfect or > > exhaustive set of tests, they simply test some things I was interested > > in, and as always with every test there are things that could be added > > or changed. > > Of course, but could you please fix the few things that Jacek mentioned, > and update the todos that succeed now? Thanks. I can resend with just todos removed if that's ok, since changing the things that Jacek pointed out (adding the tests after EndDialog, moving the tests into another place or removing a test that makes sure that window state has not really changed) has no influence on the things being actually tested. -- Dmitry.

April 12, 2016

Re: user32/tests: Add some tests for dialog owner disabled state. (v3)

by Alexandre Julliard

Dmitry Timoshkov <dmitry(a)baikal.ru> writes: > Regarding any possible additional tests or moving some logic around: > as the patch subject says these tests don't pretend to be perfect or > exhaustive set of tests, they simply test some things I was interested > in, and as always with every test there are things that could be added > or changed. Of course, but could you please fix the few things that Jacek mentioned, and update the todos that succeed now? Thanks. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

April 12, 2016

wine-1.8.2-rc5 Available

by Michael Stefaniuc

Hello! Another day, another rc. wine-1.8.2-rc5 is 695d31a521d695983406047cb3fead74158897b3 with following 3 additional patches: <whqBot> Piotr Caban <piotr(a)codeweavers.com>: [PATCH] msvcr110: Fix __lc_time_data definition. http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/commit/d4450b9195bd2209f5a874b31e2e82… <whqBot> Hans Leidekker <hans(a)codeweavers.com>: [PATCH] winhttp/tests: Fix test failures. http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/commit/05a13fb1558f19687f2a22c6566ed8… <whqBot> Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org>: [PATCH] secur32/tests: Don't check the exact number of cipher bits. http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/commit/9ab03dd7bbded6f9a2a93e5fec2f60… This is again a forced update. bye michael

April 11, 2016

Re: Assorted comment, trace and ok() message spelling fixes.

by Marvin

Hi, While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures. Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be wrong, but could you please double-check? Full results can be found at https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=22089 Your paranoid android. === w864 (32 bit d3d) === d3d.c:2326: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 2031 differences at 0 level d3d.c:2326: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 518 differences at 1 level d3d.c:2326: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 138 differences at 2 level d3d.c:2326: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 46 differences at 3 level d3d.c:2510: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 257 differences d3d.c:2657: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 256 differences at 2 level d3d.c:2657: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 64 differences at 3 level d3d.c:2657: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 16 differences at 4 level d3d.c:2657: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 4 differences at 5 level === w1064 (32 bit d3d) === d3d.c:2326: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 2031 differences at 0 level d3d.c:2326: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 518 differences at 1 level d3d.c:2326: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 138 differences at 2 level d3d.c:2326: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 46 differences at 3 level d3d.c:2510: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 257 differences d3d.c:2657: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 256 differences at 2 level d3d.c:2657: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 64 differences at 3 level d3d.c:2657: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 16 differences at 4 level d3d.c:2657: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 4 differences at 5 level

April 11, 2016

Re: Assorted comment, trace and ok() message spelling fixes.

by Marvin

Hi, While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures. Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be wrong, but could you please double-check? Full results can be found at https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=22088 Your paranoid android. === wvistau64 (32 bit action) === The test timed out

April 11, 2016

Re: Assorted comment, trace and ok() message spelling fixes.

by Marvin

Hi, While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures. Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be wrong, but could you please double-check? Full results can be found at https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=22087 Your paranoid android. === w1064 (32 bit uri) === uri.c:7615: Test failed: Expected google.com.uk but got L"com.uk" on uri_tests[71].str_props[3]. uri.c:7615: Test failed: Expected google.uk.1 but got L"uk.1" on uri_tests[73].str_props[3]. uri.c:7613: Test failed: GetPropertyBSTR returned 0x00000000, expected 0x00000001. On uri_tests[76].str_props[3]. uri.c:7615: Test failed: Expected but got L".uk" on uri_tests[76].str_props[3]. uri.c:7615: Test failed: Expected google.com.[] but got L"com.[]" on uri_tests[77].str_props[3]. uri.c:7800: Test failed: Error: Expected google.com.uk but got L"com.uk" on uri_tests[71]. uri.c:7800: Test failed: Error: Expected google.uk.1 but got L"uk.1" on uri_tests[73]. uri.c:7798: Test failed: Error: GetDomain returned 0x00000000, expected 0x00000001 on uri_tests[76]. uri.c:7800: Test failed: Error: Expected but got L".uk" on uri_tests[76]. uri.c:7800: Test failed: Error: Expected google.com.[] but got L"com.[]" on uri_tests[77]. uri.c:8080: Test failed: Error: Expected a length of 13 but got 6 on uri_tests[71].str_props[3]. uri.c:8080: Test failed: Error: Expected a length of 11 but got 4 on uri_tests[73].str_props[3]. uri.c:8078: Test failed: Error: GetPropertyLength returned 0x00000000, expected 0x00000001 on uri_tests[76].str_props[3]. uri.c:8080: Test failed: Error: Expected a length of 0 but got 3 on uri_tests[76].str_props[3]. uri.c:8080: Test failed: Error: Expected a length of 13 but got 6 on uri_tests[77].str_props[3]. uri.c:8147: Test failed: Error: Received flag for property 3 when not expected on uri_tests[76]. uri.c:8197: Test failed: Error: Wasn't expecting to have property 3 on uri_tests[76]. uri.c:10487: Test failed: Error: Expected google.com.uk but got L"com.uk" instead on uri_parse_tests[42]. uri.c:10490: Test failed: Error: Expected 13, but got 6 instead on uri_parse_tests[42]. === w1064 (64 bit uri) === uri.c:7615: Test failed: Expected google.com.uk but got L"com.uk" on uri_tests[71].str_props[3]. uri.c:7615: Test failed: Expected google.uk.1 but got L"uk.1" on uri_tests[73].str_props[3]. uri.c:7613: Test failed: GetPropertyBSTR returned 0x00000000, expected 0x00000001. On uri_tests[76].str_props[3]. uri.c:7615: Test failed: Expected but got L".uk" on uri_tests[76].str_props[3]. uri.c:7615: Test failed: Expected google.com.[] but got L"com.[]" on uri_tests[77].str_props[3]. uri.c:7800: Test failed: Error: Expected google.com.uk but got L"com.uk" on uri_tests[71]. uri.c:7800: Test failed: Error: Expected google.uk.1 but got L"uk.1" on uri_tests[73]. uri.c:7798: Test failed: Error: GetDomain returned 0x00000000, expected 0x00000001 on uri_tests[76]. uri.c:7800: Test failed: Error: Expected but got L".uk" on uri_tests[76]. uri.c:7800: Test failed: Error: Expected google.com.[] but got L"com.[]" on uri_tests[77]. uri.c:8080: Test failed: Error: Expected a length of 13 but got 6 on uri_tests[71].str_props[3]. uri.c:8080: Test failed: Error: Expected a length of 11 but got 4 on uri_tests[73].str_props[3]. uri.c:8078: Test failed: Error: GetPropertyLength returned 0x00000000, expected 0x00000001 on uri_tests[76].str_props[3]. uri.c:8080: Test failed: Error: Expected a length of 0 but got 3 on uri_tests[76].str_props[3]. uri.c:8080: Test failed: Error: Expected a length of 13 but got 6 on uri_tests[77].str_props[3]. uri.c:8147: Test failed: Error: Received flag for property 3 when not expected on uri_tests[76]. uri.c:8197: Test failed: Error: Wasn't expecting to have property 3 on uri_tests[76]. uri.c:10487: Test failed: Error: Expected google.com.uk but got L"com.uk" instead on uri_parse_tests[42]. uri.c:10490: Test failed: Error: Expected 13, but got 6 instead on uri_parse_tests[42].

April 11, 2016