Jakob Eriksson <jakov(a)vmlinux.org> writes:
Do you agree, should we stop using winrash?
"Dmitry Timoshkov" <dmitry(a)baikal.ru> wrote:
"Jakob Eriksson" <jakov(a)vmlinux.org> wrote:
Well, I tried now marking the service as interactive, but that didn't make any difference.
So, what follows, deprecate Winrash?
If it really breaks the tests then definitely yes.
I think it does provide much useful information which would be largely lost if we resorted to manual testing. What's more, winetest is not really up to that, as it doesn't ask for a tag but relies on a command line option which people would tend to forget. What I propose: make winetest detect whether it's running on an interactive desktop or not, and include this info in the header just like bRunningUnderWine. Meanwhile add the tag dialog to winetest and separate or mark the different reports on the webpage for easier reference. That would bring us the best of both worlds. Or possibly tweak the sensitive tests (how many are there?) to make clear in the output that they were not run for this reason... That would probably require a new field in the final report (ie. success-failure-todo-skipped or similar). This could also signal WINETEST_INTERACTIVE tests so that they aren't forgotten about... That said, I don't know much of this desktop business, so I'm not sure how to put the detection logic in. The rest should not be hard, I hope I'll find the time for them if we decide to go this way. -- Feri.
Ferenc Wagner wrote:
Jakob Eriksson <jakov(a)vmlinux.org> writes:
If it really breaks the tests then definitely yes.
I think it does provide much useful information which would be largely lost if we resorted to manual testing. What's
Good, I kind of hoped you thought so too.
more, winetest is not really up to that, as it doesn't ask for a tag but relies on a command line option which people would tend to forget. What I propose: make winetest detect whether it's running on an interactive desktop or not, and include this info in the header just like bRunningUnderWine. Meanwhile add the tag dialog to winetest and separate or mark the different reports on the webpage for easier reference. That would bring us the best of both worlds.
Or possibly tweak the sensitive tests (how many are there?) to make clear in the output that they were not run for this
I tried sending a patch for this, but it wasn't much loved and dropped.
reason... That would probably require a new field in the final report (ie. success-failure-todo-skipped or similar). This could also signal WINETEST_INTERACTIVE tests so that they aren't forgotten about...
That said, I don't know much of this desktop business, so I'm not sure how to put the detection logic in. The rest
Well, line 183 in dlls/gdi/tests/metafile.c detects rather nicely whether we are running in an interactive desktop or not. I could copy that logic to winetest.exe metafile.c : 183 ok(emr_processed, "EnumEnhMetaFile couldn't find EMR_EXTTEXTOUTA or EMR_EXTTEXTOUTW record\n"); ( http://test.winehq.org/data/200412021000/2000_JakobErikssonBW/gdi32:metafile... ) regards, Jakob Eriksson
"Jakob Eriksson" <jakov(a)vmlinux.org> wrote:
Well, line 183 in dlls/gdi/tests/metafile.c detects rather nicely whether we are running in an interactive desktop or not.
I could copy that logic to winetest.exe
metafile.c : 183 ok(emr_processed, "EnumEnhMetaFile couldn't find EMR_EXTTEXTOUTA or EMR_EXTTEXTOUTW record\n");
( http://test.winehq.org/data/200412021000/2000_JakobErikssonBW/gdi32:metafile... )
A better and much simpler test is: if (!(GetWindowLongA(GetDesktopWindow(), GWL_STYLE) & WS_VISBLE)) trace("running on a not visible desktop\n"); -- Dmitry.
If the implementation of automated testing is broken why not fix it or work around the issues rather than abandon the whole idea? Isn't it useful to have all non-interactive tests run automatically on dozens of machines? If it isn't useful then I agree, we should stop the automated testing. Chris On Tuesday 07 December 2004 5:25 am, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
Jakob Eriksson <jakov(a)vmlinux.org> writes:
Do you agree, should we stop using winrash?
"Dmitry Timoshkov" <dmitry(a)baikal.ru> wrote:
"Jakob Eriksson" <jakov(a)vmlinux.org> wrote:
Well, I tried now marking the service as interactive, but that didn't make any difference.
So, what follows, deprecate Winrash?
If it really breaks the tests then definitely yes.
I think it does provide much useful information which would be largely lost if we resorted to manual testing. What's more, winetest is not really up to that, as it doesn't ask for a tag but relies on a command line option which people would tend to forget. What I propose: make winetest detect whether it's running on an interactive desktop or not, and include this info in the header just like bRunningUnderWine. Meanwhile add the tag dialog to winetest and separate or mark the different reports on the webpage for easier reference. That would bring us the best of both worlds.
Or possibly tweak the sensitive tests (how many are there?) to make clear in the output that they were not run for this reason... That would probably require a new field in the final report (ie. success-failure-todo-skipped or similar). This could also signal WINETEST_INTERACTIVE tests so that they aren't forgotten about...
That said, I don't know much of this desktop business, so I'm not sure how to put the detection logic in. The rest should not be hard, I hope I'll find the time for them if we decide to go this way.
participants (4)
-
Chris Morgan -
Dmitry Timoshkov -
Ferenc Wagner -
Jakob Eriksson