https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43124
Bug ID: 43124 Summary: FlashWindowEx: WM_NCACTIVATE behavior is incorrect Product: Wine Version: unspecified Hardware: x86 OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: user32 Assignee: wine-bugs@winehq.org Reporter: gamax92@aol.com Distribution: ---
Created attachment 58328 --> https://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=58328 FlashWindowEx dwFlags parameter tests
Depending on the dwFlags parameter, FlashWindowEx may send a WM_NCACTIVATE message with the wrong wParam value. Some flags should not send a WM_NCACTIVATE message at all.
Attached is a document I've made from testing FlashWindowEx with various flags and having the window active/inactive.
This issue seems to be related to Overwatch losing focus on respawn, it calls FlashWindowEx with dwFlags = 0xE (FLASHW_TIMERNOFG + FLASHW_TRAY), which according to my tests should send a WM_NCACTIVATE message with 1, but wine sends 0 instead. Forcing FlashWindowEx to send TRUE instead did resolve the loss of focus.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43124
James Coonradt gamax92@aol.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #58328|0 |1 is obsolete| |
--- Comment #1 from James Coonradt gamax92@aol.com --- Created attachment 58337 --> https://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=58337 FlashWindowEx behavior documentation
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43124
--- Comment #2 from James Coonradt gamax92@aol.com --- The old document did not take into account the count or timeout values (both were set to zero), so further testing was done with various flags, count, and timeout values and a new document was attached.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43124
Sebastian Lackner sebastian@fds-team.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |sebastian@fds-team.de
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43124
Jactry Zeng jactry92@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jactry92@gmail.com
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43124
winetest@luukku.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |winetest@luukku.com
--- Comment #3 from winetest@luukku.com --- Are you able to form a patch and sent it over wine-patches?
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43124
--- Comment #4 from James Coonradt gamax92@aol.com --- Yes, I'll be making a patch over this weekend, still have a couple of changes to this documentation regarding the return values and calling the function multiple times but I'll have a patch soon.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43124
Matteo Bruni matteo.mystral@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Staged patchset| |https://github.com/wine-sta | |ging/wine-staging/tree/mast | |er/patches/user32-FlashWind | |owEx Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |STAGED
--- Comment #5 from Matteo Bruni matteo.mystral@gmail.com --- It looks like James' patch is currently in staging. I don't think it was ever sent for inclusion upstream.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43124
--- Comment #6 from James Coonradt gamax92@aol.com --- I never got to submitting a patch for upstream due to confusing testing results, untested combinations, and missing behavior that I was unable to properly replicate. Also due to design issues whether wine should even try to replicate this behavior like the periodic message sending anyway since X11 doesn't have as dynamic of a window alert system than Windows. My apologies.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43124
Jeremy Newman jnewman@codeweavers.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jnewman@codeweavers.com
-
wine-bugs＠winehq.org