On 1/19/11 9:31 PM, Erich Hoover wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Jacek Cabanjacek@codeweavers.com wrote:
On 1/18/11 7:31 PM, Erich Hoover wrote:
I've attached a test where I disabled the client/container, and you can see that it then gets passed through (QueryStatusWB will return
success instead of passing through the client target and returning failure):
Hmm, it means that another run of tests (at least required subset of existing test_WebBrowser) with client's IOleCommandTarget disabled would be interesting. Do you feel like writing it? Otherwise we'd need at least a FIXME in this case.
I've been working on putting such a test together, I actually just finished it up when I got your message. It's attached to this email, and I would appreciate it if you would take a look - it ends up being rather non-trivial since native caches the IOleCommandTarget on creation of the container.
Corresponding test results: https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=8449
Thanks. I have a few comments:
+static int OleContainer_use_custom_target = TRUE;
Please name it without mixing naming convention, something like use_container_olecmd would do.
+ case IDM_STOP: + prgCmds[0].cmdf = 0; + return S_OK;
CHECK_EXPECT(QueryStatus_STOP) would be nice here.
+ ok(status& success_flag, "OLECMDID_STOP not enabled/supported: %08x\n", status);
You could test the exact value here: ok(status == ...)
+ ok(!(status& success_flag), "IDM_STOP enabled/supported: %08x\n", status);
And here.
+ +static void test_CommandTargetPassthru(int use_custom_target) +{
test_CommandTargetPassthru(TRUE) could go to existing test_WebBrowser.
+ + if (!target) + return E_FAIL;
A test for this case would be nice. Also with this patch, testing ExecEB shouldn't be too hard, let's test it as well.
Jacek