On 20 April 2016 at 16:00, Aaryaman Vasishta <jem456.vasishta@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry for the late reply, I was sick for the last couple of days.
>
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Henri Verbeet <hverbeet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 18 April 2016 at 19:00, Aaryaman Vasishta <jem456.vasishta@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > diff --git a/dlls/d3drm/tests/d3drm.c b/dlls/d3drm/tests/d3drm.c
>> > index a8f9c40..2b0174d 100644
>> > --- a/dlls/d3drm/tests/d3drm.c
>> > +++ b/dlls/d3drm/tests/d3drm.c
>> > @@ -1269,7 +1269,8 @@ static void test_destroy_callback(unsigned int
>> > test_idx, REFCLSID clsid, REFIID
>> >      context.test_idx = test_idx;
>> >      context.obj = obj;
>> >
>> > -    hr = IDirect3DRMObject_AddDestroyCallback(obj, NULL, &context);
>> > +    if ((hr = IDirect3DRMObject_AddDestroyCallback(obj, NULL,
>> > &context)) != D3DRMERR_BADVALUE)
>> > +        return;
>> I don't think we want that. Doing this means we won't notice when the
>> function starts returning the wrong value, and the following tests get
>> effectively disabled too in that case.
>>
> I do agree, but what should we do when a new object is implemented? If it's
> okay to extend CreateObject to include the new interface as well as
> implement Add/Delete destroy callbacks in the same patch, then there's no
> problem going with this. I had intended to keep the return statement in case
> a new object was added into CreateObject, but the destroy callback functions
> for that object weren't implemented.

The easiest way would be to just send the patch that implements those
first. The slightly more complicated way would be to add another todo
flag.