September 2017 - Wine-Devel

Re: [PATCH 6/9] sapi: Add a partial implementation of SpObjectTokenEnum::Next().
by Marvin Sept. 28, 2017

Sept. 28, 2017

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=33315 Your paranoid android. === build (build) === Recreation of tests/Makefile failed

1 0

WineTest does not run the vcomp tests
by Francois Gouget Sept. 28, 2017

Sept. 28, 2017

So WineTest is not running the vcomp tests. What happens is this: * It parses the vcomp_test.exe filename and concludes that this tests the vcomp dll. * It does a LoadLibraryExA("vcomp.dll", NULL, LOAD_LIBRARY_AS_DATAFILE) which fails (as expected) and concludes that the dll is missing: vcomp=dll is missing * Since the dll is missing WineTest skips the vcomp tests. According to Dan Kegel this is a manifest / activation context issue and he sent a patch for it [1]. However the patch was for the TestBot [2], not WineTest, and as far as I can tell it's not working. Furthermore WineTest already has activation context code that seems equivalent to Dan Kegel's patch. Does anyone know how to fix WineTest? [1] https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31609 https://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2012-September/117631.html [2] Paradoxically the TestBot has no problem running the vcomp tests now that they dynamically load the vcomp dll. That's because the TestBot makes no assumption based on the executable filename since one can upload test binaries that don't follow any naming scheme. So now the test dynamically loads vcomp.dll the TestBot cannot check for it. -- Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)free.fr> http://fgouget.free.fr/ May your Tongue stick to the Roof of your Mouth with the Force of a Thousand Caramels.

2 2

Re: user.exe16: Support Windows 1.x and 2.x Menus
by Alexandre Julliard Sept. 28, 2017

Sept. 28, 2017

Martin Payne <development(a)martinpayne.me.uk> writes: > Added support for Windows 1.x / 2.x menu resources to > LoadMenuIndirect16. The format of these are slightly different from > Windows 3.x menus which causes them to fail to load. Where did you find an app that needs this? -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

2 3

Re: [PATCH 6/6] shell32: Implement FolderItem::Name() property getter
by Marvin Sept. 27, 2017

Sept. 27, 2017

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=33296 Your paranoid android. === wxppro (32 bit shelldispatch) === shelldispatch.c:635: Test failed: file_defs[1]: unexpected name L"01-empty".

2 1

Re: [PATCH] ole32: CreateDataCache should return a COleCache object by default.
by Huw Davies Sept. 26, 2017

Sept. 26, 2017

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 01:00:08AM +0000, Alistair Leslie-Hughes wrote: > Signed-off-by: Alistair Leslie-Hughes <leslie_alistair(a)hotmail.com> > --- > dlls/ole32/datacache.c | 5 ++++- > dlls/ole32/tests/ole2.c | 10 ++++++++-- > 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/dlls/ole32/datacache.c b/dlls/ole32/datacache.c > index a95d0fb..c563118 100644 > --- a/dlls/ole32/datacache.c > +++ b/dlls/ole32/datacache.c > @@ -2760,7 +2760,10 @@ HRESULT WINAPI CreateDataCache( > if (newCache == 0) > return E_OUTOFMEMORY; > > - hr = IUnknown_QueryInterface(&newCache->IUnknown_inner, riid, ppvObj); > + if ( !pUnkOuter && IsEqualIID(&IID_IUnknown, riid) ) > + hr = IUnknown_QueryInterface(&newCache->IUnknown_inner, &IID_IOleCache2, ppvObj); > + else > + hr = IUnknown_QueryInterface(&newCache->IUnknown_inner, riid, ppvObj); > IUnknown_Release(&newCache->IUnknown_inner); But now if you call QI(IID_IUnknown) on this interface you'll get back something different, which is wrong. You'll need to do some more restructing to make this correct. Btw, is there a bug that depends on this? > diff --git a/dlls/ole32/tests/ole2.c b/dlls/ole32/tests/ole2.c > index b30f63b..39b161c 100644 > --- a/dlls/ole32/tests/ole2.c > +++ b/dlls/ole32/tests/ole2.c > @@ -1575,6 +1575,7 @@ static void test_data_cache(void) > char szSystemDir[MAX_PATH]; > WCHAR wszPath[MAX_PATH]; > static const WCHAR wszShell32[] = {'\\','s','h','e','l','l','3','2','.','d','l','l',0}; > + DWORD connection; > > static const struct expected_method methods_cacheinitnew[] = > { > @@ -1651,14 +1652,19 @@ static void test_data_cache(void) > ok(hr == S_OK, "got 0x%08x\n", hr); > hr = IUnknown_QueryInterface(unk, &IID_IOleCache2, (void**)&pOleCache); > ok(hr == S_OK, "got 0x%08x\n", hr); > -todo_wine { > ok(unk == (IUnknown*)olecache, "got %p, expected %p\n", olecache, unk); > ok(unk == (IUnknown*)pOleCache, "got %p, expected %p\n", pOleCache, unk); > -} > + > IOleCache2_Release(pOleCache); > IOleCache_Release(olecache); > IUnknown_Release(unk); > > + hr = CreateDataCache(NULL, &CLSID_NULL, &IID_IUnknown, (void**)&olecache); > + ok(hr == S_OK, "got 0x%08x\n", hr); > + hr = IOleCache_Cache(olecache, &fmtetc, ADVF_PRIMEFIRST | ADVFCACHE_NOHANDLER, &connection); > + ok(hr == S_OK, "got 0x%08x\n", hr); > + IOleCache_Release(olecache); > + A better test would be to call QI(IID_IOleCache) on the returned IUnknown* and show that it's the same. You could also QI(IID_IUnknown) to test for my comment above. Huw.

2 1

Re: [PATCH 1/2] gdi32: Remove runtime check for FT_Set_Charmap()
by Huw Davies Sept. 26, 2017

Sept. 26, 2017

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 05:38:53PM +0300, Nikolay Sivov wrote: > Signed-off-by: Nikolay Sivov <nsivov(a)codeweavers.com> > --- > dlls/gdi32/freetype.c | 79 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------- > 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-) I've resent this series removing pFT_Select_Charmap since it's now not used. Thanks, Huw.

1 0

Re: [PATCH 2/5] shell32: Use shellfolder API to construct FolderItems
by Alexandre Julliard Sept. 25, 2017

Sept. 25, 2017

Nikolay Sivov <nsivov(a)codeweavers.com> writes: > Signed-off-by: Nikolay Sivov <nsivov(a)codeweavers.com> > --- > dlls/shell32/shelldispatch.c | 195 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- > dlls/shell32/tests/shelldispatch.c | 3 + > 2 files changed, 118 insertions(+), 80 deletions(-) This breaks the tests here: ../../../tools/runtest -q -P wine -T ../../.. -M shell32.dll -p shell32_test.exe.so shelldispatch && touch shelldispatch.ok shelldispatch.c:615: Test failed: file_defs[0]: expected L"C:\\users\\julliard\\Temp\\winetest\\00-Myfolder", got L"C:\\users\\julliard\\Temp\\winetest\\01-empty.bin" shelldispatch.c:681: Test failed: file_defs[0]: expected L"C:\\users\\julliard\\Temp\\winetest\\00-Myfolder", got L"C:\\users\\julliard\\Temp\\winetest\\01-empty.bin" shelldispatch.c:615: Test failed: file_defs[1]: expected L"C:\\users\\julliard\\Temp\\winetest\\01-empty.bin", got L"C:\\users\\julliard\\Temp\\winetest\\00-Myfolder" shelldispatch.c:681: Test failed: file_defs[1]: expected L"C:\\users\\julliard\\Temp\\winetest\\01-empty.bin", got L"C:\\users\\julliard\\Temp\\winetest\\00-Myfolder" Makefile:515: recipe for target 'shelldispatch.ok' failed make: *** [shelldispatch.ok] Error 4 -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

1 0

[PATCH] dwmapi: Update spec file.
by Andrey Gusev Sept. 25, 2017

Sept. 25, 2017

> Why are you removing these? I guess it's not so important to leave these.

1 0

Re: [PATCH 2/2] shell32/tests: Check IDispatch for NULL before using its functions
by Nikolay Sivov Sept. 25, 2017

Sept. 25, 2017

On 25.09.2017 21:34, Fabian Maurer wrote: > Fixes Bug 43749 > > Signed-off-by: Fabian Maurer <dark.shadow4(a)web.de> > --- > dlls/shell32/tests/shelldispatch.c | 14 ++++++++++---- > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/dlls/shell32/tests/shelldispatch.c b/dlls/shell32/tests/shelldispatch.c > index 7b5afa0c94..b31497b557 100644 > --- a/dlls/shell32/tests/shelldispatch.c > +++ b/dlls/shell32/tests/shelldispatch.c > @@ -134,13 +134,15 @@ static void test_namespace(void) > r = IShellDispatch_get_Application(sd, &disp); > ok(r == S_OK, "Failed to get application pointer, hr %#x.\n", r); > ok(disp == (IDispatch *)sd, "Unexpected application pointer %p.\n", disp); > - IDispatch_Release(disp); > + if(disp) > + IDispatch_Release(disp); > > disp = NULL; > r = IShellDispatch_get_Parent(sd, &disp); > ok(r == S_OK, "Failed to get Shell object parent, hr %#x.\n", r); > ok(disp == (IDispatch *)sd, "Unexpected parent pointer %p.\n", disp); > - IDispatch_Release(disp); > + if(disp) > + IDispatch_Release(disp); > > VariantInit(&var); > folder = (void*)0xdeadbeef; > @@ -502,7 +504,8 @@ static void test_items(void) > r = FolderItem_get_Parent(item, &disp); > ok(r == S_OK, "Failed to get parent pointer, hr %#x.\n", r); > ok(disp == (IDispatch *)folder, "Unexpected parent pointer %p.\n", disp); > - IDispatch_Release(disp); > + if(disp) > + IDispatch_Release(disp); > > if (item) FolderItem_Release(item); > VariantClear(&var); > @@ -1036,6 +1039,10 @@ todo_wine { > ok(disp == NULL, "got %p\n", disp); > ok(ret == 0, "got %d\n", ret); > } > + else if (disp == NULL) { > + ok(FALSE, "disp is NULL\n"); > + skip("disp is NULL\n"); > + } > else { > static const IID *browser_riids[] = { > &IID_IWebBrowser2, > @@ -1055,7 +1062,6 @@ todo_wine { > IShellView *sv; > IUnknown *unk; > > - ok(disp != NULL, "got %p\n", disp); > ok(ret != HandleToUlong(hwnd), "got %d\n", ret); > > /* IDispatch-related tests */ > So what happens exactly that makes get_Parent() and get_Application() fail? I don't think workarounds like that are useful without understanding the problem.

2 1

Re: [PATCH] dwmapi: Update spec file.
by Alexandre Julliard Sept. 25, 2017

Sept. 25, 2017

Andrey Gusev <andrey.goosev(a)gmail.com> writes: > @@ -1,29 +1,10 @@ > -100 stub @ > -101 stub @ > -102 stdcall DwmEnableComposition (long) > -103 stub @ > -104 stub @ > -105 stub @ > -106 stub @ > -107 stub @ > -108 stub @ > -109 stub @ > -110 stub @ > -111 stub @ > -112 stub @ > -113 stub @ > - > -115 stub @ > -116 stub @ > -117 stub @ > -118 stub @ > -119 stub @ > -120 stub @ Why are you removing these? Also in general new stubs should be commented out. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

1 0