Re: user32: ImmProcessKey is only called on WM_KEYDOWN and if the message is being removed
Aric Stewart <aric(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
Worked out with testing on Japanese windows XP. Resolves issues with keystrokes and accelerators in menus when the IME is active.
You should really start adding the tests and base your patches on test results instead of some sort of speculation. -- Dmitry.
On 3/27/13 9:25 PM, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Aric Stewart <aric(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
Worked out with testing on Japanese windows XP. Resolves issues with keystrokes and accelerators in menus when the IME is active.
You should really start adding the tests and base your patches on test results instead of some sort of speculation.
I would love to add tests. But things like this require enough parts of things working in such a way that it was very hard if not impossible for me to think of a way to do it through an automated test for wine, let alone one that would run for windows. -aric
Aric Stewart <aric(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
Worked out with testing on Japanese windows XP. Resolves issues with keystrokes and accelerators in menus when the IME is active.
You should really start adding the tests and base your patches on test results instead of some sort of speculation.
I would love to add tests. But things like this require enough parts of things working in such a way that it was very hard if not impossible for me to think of a way to do it through an automated test for wine, let alone one that would run for windows.
So, you admit that your IME patches are just a guesswork, i.e. you have zero number of automated tests to check another guess? That's really confusing. -- Dmitry.
On 3/28/13 8:10 AM, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Aric Stewart <aric(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
Worked out with testing on Japanese windows XP. Resolves issues with keystrokes and accelerators in menus when the IME is active.
You should really start adding the tests and base your patches on test results instead of some sort of speculation.
I would love to add tests. But things like this require enough parts of things working in such a way that it was very hard if not impossible for me to think of a way to do it through an automated test for wine, let alone one that would run for windows.
So, you admit that your IME patches are just a guesswork, i.e. you have zero number of automated tests to check another guess? That's really confusing.
No. They are not guesswork. I wrote _interactive_ tests that I used on my windows machine to prove the behavior and this patch. It am was unable to make _automated_ tests that will in any meaningful way test the behavior. -aric
Am 28.03.2013 14:41, schrieb Aric Stewart:
On 3/28/13 8:10 AM, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Aric Stewart <aric(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
Worked out with testing on Japanese windows XP. Resolves issues with keystrokes and accelerators in menus when the IME is active.
You should really start adding the tests and base your patches on test results instead of some sort of speculation.
I would love to add tests. But things like this require enough parts of things working in such a way that it was very hard if not impossible for me to think of a way to do it through an automated test for wine, let alone one that would run for windows.
So, you admit that your IME patches are just a guesswork, i.e. you have zero number of automated tests to check another guess? That's really confusing.
No. They are not guesswork.
I wrote _interactive_ tests that I used on my windows machine to prove the behavior and this patch. It am was unable to make _automated_ tests that will in any meaningful way test the behavior.
I just want to mention at this point that there is a interactive mode for winetest: export WINETEST_INTERACTIVE=1 should do it...
participants (3)
-
André Hentschel -
Aric Stewart -
Dmitry Timoshkov