- Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Re: [PATCH v5 7/8] ntoskrnl: Set device ContainerID from driver
by Marvin July 12, 2022

July 12, 2022

Hi, It looks like your patch introduced the new failures shown below. Please investigate and fix them before resubmitting your patch. If they are not new, fixing them anyway would help a lot. Otherwise please ask for the known failures list to be updated. The tests also ran into some preexisting test failures. If you know how to fix them that would be helpful. See the TestBot job for the details: The full results can be found at: https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=118863 Your paranoid android. === w7u_2qxl (32 bit report) === ntoskrnl.exe: ntoskrnl.c:1654: Test failed: got size 78 ntoskrnl.c:1655: Test failed: got container ID "{" === w7u_el (32 bit report) === ntoskrnl.exe: ntoskrnl.c:1654: Test failed: got size 78 ntoskrnl.c:1655: Test failed: got container ID "{" === w8 (32 bit report) === ntoskrnl.exe: ntoskrnl.c:1654: Test failed: got size 78 ntoskrnl.c:1655: Test failed: got container ID "{" === w1064_tsign (64 bit report) === ntoskrnl.exe: ntoskrnl.c:1654: Test failed: got size 78 ntoskrnl.c:1655: Test failed: got container ID "{" === debian11 (32 bit Hebrew:Israel report) === ntoskrnl.exe: driver_pnp.c:706: Test failed: Got 1 remove events. === debian11 (32 bit Hindi:India report) === ntoskrnl.exe: driver_pnp.c:706: Test failed: Got 1 remove events.

1 0

Re: [PATCH v4 9/9] ntoskrnl/tests: Add test for getting SPDRP_BASE_CONTAINERID from PnP driver
by Marvin July 12, 2022

July 12, 2022

Hi, It looks like your patch introduced the new failures shown below. Please investigate and fix them before resubmitting your patch. If they are not new, fixing them anyway would help a lot. Otherwise please ask for the known failures list to be updated. The tests also ran into some preexisting test failures. If you know how to fix them that would be helpful. See the TestBot job for the details: The full results can be found at: https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=118840 Your paranoid android. === w7u_2qxl (32 bit report) === ntoskrnl.exe: ntoskrnl.c:1654: Test failed: got size 78 ntoskrnl.c:1655: Test failed: got container ID "{" === w7u_el (32 bit report) === ntoskrnl.exe: ntoskrnl.c:1654: Test failed: got size 78 ntoskrnl.c:1655: Test failed: got container ID "{" === w8 (32 bit report) === ntoskrnl.exe: ntoskrnl.c:1654: Test failed: got size 78 ntoskrnl.c:1655: Test failed: got container ID "{" ntoskrnl.c:1702: Test failed: got 0 child removal messages ntoskrnl.c:1719: Test failed: got 0 child removal messages === w1064_tsign (64 bit report) === ntoskrnl.exe: ntoskrnl.c:1654: Test failed: got size 78 ntoskrnl.c:1655: Test failed: got container ID "{" === debian11 (32 bit Hebrew:Israel report) === ntoskrnl.exe: driver_pnp.c:706: Test failed: Got 1 remove events.

1 0

Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] mshtml: Check for valid XML Content-Type for responseXML in IE10+ modes.
by Marvin July 12, 2022

July 12, 2022

Hi, It looks like your patch introduced the new failures shown below. Please investigate and fix them before resubmitting your patch. If they are not new, fixing them anyway would help a lot. Otherwise please ask for the known failures list to be updated. The tests also ran into some preexisting test failures. If you know how to fix them that would be helpful. See the TestBot job for the details: The full results can be found at: https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=118824 Your paranoid android. === w10pro64 (32 bit report) === mshtml: htmldoc.c:2541: Test failed: unexpected call UpdateUI htmldoc.c:2853: Test failed: unexpected call Exec_UPDATECOMMANDS

1 0

Re: [PATCH v4 8/9] ntoskrnl: Set Device ContainerID from driver when registering an interface
by Marvin July 12, 2022

July 12, 2022

Hi, It looks like your patch introduced the new failures shown below. Please investigate and fix them before resubmitting your patch. If they are not new, fixing them anyway would help a lot. Otherwise please ask for the known failures list to be updated. The tests also ran into some preexisting test failures. If you know how to fix them that would be helpful. See the TestBot job for the details: The full results can be found at: https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=118839 Your paranoid android. === debian11 (32 bit report) === ntoskrnl.exe: driver_pnp.c:703: Test failed: Got 1 remove events.

1 0

Re: [PATCH v4 6/9] ntoskrnl: Improve error handling in get_device_id
by Marvin July 12, 2022

July 12, 2022

Hi, It looks like your patch introduced the new failures shown below. Please investigate and fix them before resubmitting your patch. If they are not new, fixing them anyway would help a lot. Otherwise please ask for the known failures list to be updated. The tests also ran into some preexisting test failures. If you know how to fix them that would be helpful. See the TestBot job for the details: The full results can be found at: https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=118837 Your paranoid android. === debian11 (64 bit WoW report) === ntoskrnl.exe: driver_pnp.c:703: Test failed: Got 1 remove events.

1 0

Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] mshtml: Respect LOAD_CALL_CONTENT_SNIFFERS when using detected mime type.
by Marvin July 12, 2022

July 12, 2022

Hi, It looks like your patch introduced the new failures shown below. Please investigate and fix them before resubmitting your patch. If they are not new, fixing them anyway would help a lot. Otherwise please ask for the known failures list to be updated. The tests also ran into some preexisting test failures. If you know how to fix them that would be helpful. See the TestBot job for the details: The full results can be found at: https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=118823 Your paranoid android. === w10pro64 (64 bit report) === mshtml: htmldoc.c:2541: Test failed: unexpected call UpdateUI htmldoc.c:2853: Test failed: unexpected call Exec_UPDATECOMMANDS htmldoc.c:350: Test failed: expected Exec_SETTITLE htmldoc.c:2859: Test failed: unexpected call Exec_SETTITLE

1 0

Gitlab experiment wrapup
by Alexandre Julliard July 12, 2022

July 12, 2022

Folks, Here's a summary of the Gitlab experiment discussion, with some additional comments. Thanks to everybody who sent their feedback! * Things that people like: - Fetching commits directly with git instead of applying patches from emails (Huw, Jacek, Paul, Zeb). Indeed that's a major help for me as well. - Better tracker, easy to see the list of pending reviews (Huw). - Possibility to host more Wine projects, as well as private Wine trees to share WIP patches (Jacek). Indeed it would be nice to have all Wine projects in one place instead of the current mix of github/sourceforge/etc. - Potential for automation (Jacek). Gitlab offers many services that we will be able to take advantage of, the most obvious being CI for the testbot. Having all the data in a proper database instead of free-form emails should make it possible to do other interesting things as well. * Some other things I like: - Updating status doesn't need to go through me, people can assign reviewers, supersede patches, etc. directly. That reduces my workload and improves the bus factor. Once we have figured out how to make testbot results reliable, we could also have maintainers merge commits directly. - The full discussion thread for a given MR is readily accessible, it doesn't require hunting down the multiple revisions of a patch and associated threads in the mailman archive. * Things that could be improved: - Signoffs are a bit cumbersome (Rémi). We should change the requirements to something better adapted to Gitlab. - It's only possible to approve the whole MR, not individual commits (Huw, Zeb). I think that's an acceptable trade-off, but we could imagine other approaches. - The mailing list gateway creates too much noise; mixing comments from Gitlab and mailing list isn't very clean (Jacek, Rémi, Alex). We can make some tweaks, or use a separate list, or even rethink the approach of the mail gateway. - Gitlab threading support is limited, nested comment threads are not supported (Zeb). That's true, but looking through the past few months of patch reviews, it seems that we almost never use nested threads, so I think we can live with that limitation. - Reviewers can push fixups to commits, but that requires the author to grant explicit permission (Jacek). Hopefully we can tweak access rights to allow this by default. * Conclusion I think Gitlab is working well for us, and most people seem generally happy with it. So my plan is to go forward and make Gitlab the main development platform for Wine. I'll start working on the transition, and on the improvements mentioned above. Any help will be welcome! I'll be posting a roadmap shortly. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

8 25

Re: [PATCH 1/1] mshtml: Wine Gecko 2.47.3 release.
by Marvin July 12, 2022

July 12, 2022

Hi, It looks like your patch introduced the new failures shown below. Please investigate and fix them before resubmitting your patch. If they are not new, fixing them anyway would help a lot. Otherwise please ask for the known failures list to be updated. The tests also ran into some preexisting test failures. If you know how to fix them that would be helpful. See the TestBot job for the details: The full results can be found at: https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=118828 Your paranoid android. === debian11 (32 bit report) === mshtml: activex: Timeout dom: Timeout events: Timeout htmllocation: Timeout Report validation errors: misc: Timeout === debian11 (build log) === WineRunWineTest.pl:error: The task timed out === debian11 (32 bit WoW report) === mshtml: activex: Timeout dom: Timeout events: Timeout htmllocation: Timeout Report validation errors: misc: Timeout === debian11 (build log) === WineRunWineTest.pl:error: The task timed out

1 0

Re: [PATCH v3 8/8] ntoskrnl: Set Device ContainerID from driver when registering an interface
by Marvin July 12, 2022

July 12, 2022

Hi, It looks like your patch introduced the new failures shown below. Please investigate and fix them before resubmitting your patch. If they are not new, fixing them anyway would help a lot. Otherwise please ask for the known failures list to be updated. The tests also ran into some preexisting test failures. If you know how to fix them that would be helpful. See the TestBot job for the details: The full results can be found at: https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=118812 Your paranoid android. === debian11 (32 bit report) === ntoskrnl.exe: driver_pnp.c:703: Test failed: Got 1 remove events.

1 0

Re: [PATCH v3 7/8] ntoskrnl: Set device ContainerID from driver
by Marvin July 12, 2022

July 12, 2022

Hi, It looks like your patch introduced the new failures shown below. Please investigate and fix them before resubmitting your patch. If they are not new, fixing them anyway would help a lot. Otherwise please ask for the known failures list to be updated. The full results can be found at: https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=118811 Your paranoid android. === debian11 (64 bit WoW report) === ntoskrnl.exe: driver_pnp.c:703: Test failed: Got 1 remove events.

1 0