On 2/8/22 11:23, Alex Henrie wrote:
On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 12:08 AM Alex Henrie alexhenrie24@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 11:48 PM Alex Henrie alexhenrie24@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 11:27 PM Nikolay Sivov nsivov@codeweavers.com wrote:
--- a/dlls/user32/tests/msg.c +++ b/dlls/user32/tests/msg.c @@ -1774,7 +1774,7 @@ static const struct message WmModalDialogSeq[] = { { EVENT_OBJECT_FOCUS, winevent_hook|wparam|lparam, OBJID_CLIENT, 0 }, { WM_KILLFOCUS, sent|parent }, { WM_IME_SETCONTEXT, sent|parent|wparam|optional, 0 },
- { EVENT_OBJECT_STATECHANGE, winevent_hook|wparam|lparam|winevent_hook_todo, 0, 0 },
- { EVENT_OBJECT_STATECHANGE, winevent_hook|wparam|lparam, 0, 0 }, { WM_ENABLE, sent|parent|wparam, 0 }, { HCBT_CREATEWND, hook }, { EVENT_OBJECT_REORDER, winevent_hook|wparam|lparam|optional, 0, 0 }, /* Not sent on Win10. */
Doesn't this still pass in wine, without comctl32 change, with or without winevent_hook_todo? I see we have winetest_platform checks around winevent_hook_todo.
I don't think the platform check has anything to do with it, but I just noticed that all of these tests pass todo=TRUE to ok_sequence, which means that they do indeed pass whether or not EVENT_OBJECT_STATECHANGE is specifically marked winevent_hook_todo. So you're right, these are not good tests for the feature I'm trying to implement.
This must be what you were looking at:
/* * silently drop hook messages if there is no support for them, mark * winevent todo's. */ else if ((expected->flags & optional) || ((expected->flags & hook) && !hCBT_hook) || ((expected->flags & winevent_hook) && !hEvent_hook) || ((expected->flags & kbd_hook) && !hKBD_hook) || ((expected->flags & winevent_hook_todo) &&!strcmp(winetest_platform, "wine")))
Apparently ok_sequence treats all hooks as optional? That doesn't seem helpful...
It took me a minute but I think I get it: If we're expecting a hook and don't get one, it's OK. But if we do get a hook, it had better be the right one.
More importantly, I missed the fact that there are two (entirely?) separate checkbox implementations in Windows: One in user32 and one in comctl32. The one that NVDA uses is definitely in comctl32, but comctl32's checkbox tests will have to be expanded to test hooks.
Yes, that's what caught my attention, why comctl32 button would affect user32 tests.
-Alex