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=119952
Your …
[View More]paranoid android.
=== w10pro64 (32 bit report) ===
mshtml:
htmldoc.c:2541: Test failed: unexpected call UpdateUI
htmldoc.c:2853: Test failed: unexpected call Exec_UPDATECOMMANDS
=== w1064_2qxl (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
=== w1064_adm (64 bit report) ===
mshtml:
script.c:3119: Test failed: ReportResult failed: 80ef0001
[View Less]
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=119951
Your …
[View More]paranoid android.
=== w10pro64_en_AE_u8 (64 bit report) ===
mshtml:
htmldoc.c:2541: Test failed: unexpected call UpdateUI
htmldoc.c:2853: Test failed: unexpected call Exec_UPDATECOMMANDS
[View Less]
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=120010
Your paranoid android.
=== debian11 (32 bit report) ===
d3drm:
d3drm.c:7361: Test failed: Got unexpected color 0x007f7f7f.
d3drm.c:7380: Test failed: …
[View More]Got unexpected color 0x007f7f7f.
d3drm.c:7390: Test failed: Got unexpected color 0x007f7f7f.
d3drm.c:7410: Test failed: Got unexpected color 0x007f7f7f.
=== debian11 (32 bit Arabic:Morocco report) ===
d3drm:
d3drm.c:7361: Test failed: Got unexpected color 0x007f7f7f.
d3drm.c:7380: Test failed: Got unexpected color 0x007f7f7f.
d3drm.c:7390: Test failed: Got unexpected color 0x007f7f7f.
d3drm.c:7410: Test failed: Got unexpected color 0x007f7f7f.
=== debian11 (32 bit German report) ===
d3drm:
d3drm.c:7361: Test failed: Got unexpected color 0x007f7f7f.
d3drm.c:7380: Test failed: Got unexpected color 0x007f7f7f.
d3drm.c:7390: Test failed: Got unexpected color 0x007f7f7f.
d3drm.c:7410: Test failed: Got unexpected color 0x007f7f7f.
=== debian11 (32 bit French report) ===
d3drm:
d3drm.c:7361: Test failed: Got unexpected color 0x007f7f7f.
d3drm.c:7380: Test failed: Got unexpected color 0x007f7f7f.
d3drm.c:7390: Test failed: Got unexpected color 0x007f7f7f.
d3drm.c:7410: Test failed: Got unexpected color 0x007f7f7f.
=== debian11 (32 bit Hebrew:Israel report) ===
d3drm:
d3drm.c:7361: Test failed: Got unexpected color 0x007f7f7f.
d3drm.c:7380: Test failed: Got unexpected color 0x007f7f7f.
d3drm.c:7390: Test failed: Got unexpected color 0x007f7f7f.
d3drm.c:7410: Test failed: Got unexpected color 0x007f7f7f.
=== debian11 (32 bit Hindi:India report) ===
d3drm:
d3drm.c:7361: Test failed: Got unexpected color 0x007f7f7f.
d3drm.c:7380: Test failed: Got unexpected color 0x007f7f7f.
d3drm.c:7390: Test failed: Got unexpected color 0x007f7f7f.
d3drm.c:7410: Test failed: Got unexpected color 0x007f7f7f.
=== debian11 (32 bit Japanese:Japan report) ===
d3drm:
d3drm.c:7361: Test failed: Got unexpected color 0x007f7f7f.
d3drm.c:7380: Test failed: Got unexpected color 0x007f7f7f.
d3drm.c:7390: Test failed: Got unexpected color 0x007f7f7f.
d3drm.c:7410: Test failed: Got unexpected color 0x007f7f7f.
=== debian11 (32 bit Chinese:China report) ===
d3drm:
d3drm.c:7361: Test failed: Got unexpected color 0x007f7f7f.
d3drm.c:7380: Test failed: Got unexpected color 0x007f7f7f.
d3drm.c:7390: Test failed: Got unexpected color 0x007f7f7f.
d3drm.c:7410: Test failed: Got unexpected color 0x007f7f7f.
=== debian11 (32 bit WoW report) ===
d3drm:
d3drm.c:7361: Test failed: Got unexpected color 0x007f7f7f.
d3drm.c:7380: Test failed: Got unexpected color 0x007f7f7f.
d3drm.c:7390: Test failed: Got unexpected color 0x007f7f7f.
d3drm.c:7410: Test failed: Got unexpected color 0x007f7f7f.
=== debian11 (64 bit WoW report) ===
d3drm:
d3drm.c:7361: Test failed: Got unexpected color 0x007f7f7f.
d3drm.c:7380: Test failed: Got unexpected color 0x007f7f7f.
d3drm.c:7390: Test failed: Got unexpected color 0x007f7f7f.
d3drm.c:7410: Test failed: Got unexpected color 0x007f7f7f.
[View Less]
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=119950
Your …
[View More]paranoid android.
=== w10pro64 (32 bit report) ===
mshtml:
htmldoc.c:2541: Test failed: unexpected call UpdateUI
htmldoc.c:2853: Test failed: unexpected call Exec_UPDATECOMMANDS
[View Less]
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=119995
Your paranoid android.
=== debian11 (32 bit report) ===
comctl32:
listview.c:3578: Test succeeded inside todo block: ownerdata select multiple …
[View More]notification: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds
listview.c:3595: Test succeeded inside todo block: ownerdata select multiple notification: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds
listview.c:3578: Test succeeded inside todo block: ownerdata select multiple notification: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds
listview.c:3595: Test succeeded inside todo block: ownerdata select multiple notification: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds
=== debian11 (32 bit Chinese:China report) ===
comctl32:
listview.c:3578: Test succeeded inside todo block: ownerdata select multiple notification: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds
listview.c:3595: Test succeeded inside todo block: ownerdata select multiple notification: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds
listview.c:3578: Test succeeded inside todo block: ownerdata select multiple notification: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds
listview.c:3595: Test succeeded inside todo block: ownerdata select multiple notification: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds
=== debian11 (32 bit WoW report) ===
comctl32:
listview.c:3578: Test succeeded inside todo block: ownerdata select multiple notification: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds
listview.c:3595: Test succeeded inside todo block: ownerdata select multiple notification: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds
listview.c:3578: Test succeeded inside todo block: ownerdata select multiple notification: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds
listview.c:3595: Test succeeded inside todo block: ownerdata select multiple notification: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds
=== debian11 (64 bit WoW report) ===
comctl32:
listview.c:3578: Test succeeded inside todo block: ownerdata select multiple notification: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds
listview.c:3595: Test succeeded inside todo block: ownerdata select multiple notification: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds
listview.c:3578: Test succeeded inside todo block: ownerdata select multiple notification: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds
listview.c:3595: Test succeeded inside todo block: ownerdata select multiple notification: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds
[View Less]
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=119994
Your paranoid android.
=== debian11 (32 bit report) ===
comctl32:
listview.c:3578: Test succeeded inside todo block: ownerdata select multiple …
[View More]notification: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds
listview.c:3595: Test succeeded inside todo block: ownerdata select multiple notification: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds
listview.c:3578: Test succeeded inside todo block: ownerdata select multiple notification: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds
listview.c:3595: Test succeeded inside todo block: ownerdata select multiple notification: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds
=== debian11 (32 bit Chinese:China report) ===
comctl32:
listview.c:3578: Test succeeded inside todo block: ownerdata select multiple notification: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds
listview.c:3595: Test succeeded inside todo block: ownerdata select multiple notification: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds
listview.c:3578: Test succeeded inside todo block: ownerdata select multiple notification: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds
listview.c:3595: Test succeeded inside todo block: ownerdata select multiple notification: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds
=== debian11 (32 bit WoW report) ===
comctl32:
listview.c:3578: Test succeeded inside todo block: ownerdata select multiple notification: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds
listview.c:3595: Test succeeded inside todo block: ownerdata select multiple notification: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds
listview.c:3578: Test succeeded inside todo block: ownerdata select multiple notification: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds
listview.c:3595: Test succeeded inside todo block: ownerdata select multiple notification: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds
=== debian11 (64 bit WoW report) ===
comctl32:
listview.c:3578: Test succeeded inside todo block: ownerdata select multiple notification: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds
listview.c:3595: Test succeeded inside todo block: ownerdata select multiple notification: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds
listview.c:3578: Test succeeded inside todo block: ownerdata select multiple notification: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds
listview.c:3595: Test succeeded inside todo block: ownerdata select multiple notification: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds
[View Less]
From: Angelo Haller <angelo(a)szanni.org>
The following patches fix sending of the LVN_ODSTATECHANGED notification for
LVS_OWNERDATA list views, adding more refined tests in the process and
fixing various bugs.
This is v4 fixing the log buffer overflow on the debian test machine by
moving some of the up/down key sequences to a later patch. Patch 1/7
still includes the necessary up/down key sequences to validate the fixes
in the following patches. The matching up/down key sequences for 1/…
[View More]7
are then introduced in 7/7. I was sadly unable to introduce the test
sequence with each fix, as this would require inventing entirely new
test sequences, just to work around the debian 32KB log buffer limit.
I hope this is ok as it stands.
I am also attaching the my remarks from v3, as I don't know if they got
ignored due to failing tests:
I was sadly not able to trigger any deselect sequences through emulating
mouse clicks. I was actually completely unable even send a lef mouse
button down at all. Both SendMessage and SendInput fail, on wind and
windows.
I am unsure if programmatic mouse clicks are even supported in list
views? Some forums seem to suggest, that this is only the case for
buttons and similar elements. I was following the code snippets in
other parts of the comctl32 tests.
The other thing might be that the signal is getting caught somewhere in
the test code. If anybody has any more insight in this regard, I'd be
happy to add additional mouse click tests as well.
The other thing I was unable to do is activate the single select tests
via SHIFT/+COMMAND to show we need patch 6/6.
Windows weirdly informs about the selected item twice, once to inform
the item has been selected and then in another call later about the
item being focused as well. This seemingly only affects
LVS_OWNERDATA listviews from my tests.
Warning: I have had access to the Windows Research Kernel (WRK) 1.2
~10 years ago. These changes are regarding comctrl32 & tests which are NOT
part of the WRK. As outlined in https://wiki.winehq.org/Developer_FAQ this
should therefore satisfy the requirement of ONLY submitting patches to
components I have NOT had access to.
Angelo Haller (7):
Add more test cases to ownderdata listviews:
comctl32/listview: Fix deselect on LVS_OWNERDATA.
comctl32/listview: Move sending LVN_ODSTATECHANGED notifications to a
function.
comctl32/listview: Send LVN_ODSTATECHANGED only for virtual lists.
comctl32/listview: Send LVN_ODSTATECHANGED notification.
comctl32/listview: Send LVN_ODSTATECHANGED only for true ranges.
comctl32/tests: Expand ownerdata listview tests.
dlls/comctl32/listview.c | 55 ++++---
dlls/comctl32/tests/listview.c | 253 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
2 files changed, 281 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
Signed-off-by: Angelo Haller <angelo(a)szanni.org>
--
2.36.1
[View Less]
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=119867
Your …
[View More]paranoid android.
=== w10pro64_ar (64 bit report) ===
mshtml:
htmldoc.c:2541: Test failed: unexpected call UpdateUI
htmldoc.c:2853: Test failed: unexpected call Exec_UPDATECOMMANDS
=== w10pro64_ja (64 bit report) ===
mshtml:
htmldoc.c:2541: Test failed: unexpected call UpdateUI
htmldoc.c:2853: Test failed: unexpected call Exec_UPDATECOMMANDS
[View Less]
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=119866
Your …
[View More]paranoid android.
=== w1064v1809 (64 bit report) ===
mshtml:
script.c:3119: Test failed: ReportResult failed: 80ef0001
[View Less]