On 09/30/2009 12:10 PM, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
Paul Vriens wrote:
On 09/29/2009 12:36 PM, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
Changelog:
- be sure we have a single view calendar for hittesting
Hi Nikolay,
This one introduces a test failure on several platforms:
monthcal.c:1002: Test failed: Expected 10000, got 10002
I fixed it on my NT4 box by checking the point more to the left (see attached).
I somehow doubt it's the correct fix though. Aren't these tests with more-or-less fixed points error-prone (aka, locale/font/dpi dependent)?
Hi, Paul.
I certainly noticed that. A problem for me is that it doesn't fail on mine XP. Could you please send me (offlist) a crossbuilt binary with this patch - I'm not able to built it myself at the moment.
About fragility of these test - it was a reason why I use dynamic point calculation here, it was fixed before. So now it should be less dpi/font dependent I hope. It isn't affected by locale too much I think.
Doing a little bit of testing (doing a hittest on the full range) shows subtle differences between for example my NT4 and W2K3 box. The W2K3 calendar shows "April, 2009" where NT4 shows "April 2009".
Looking at http://test.winehq.org/data/3fe20bdc7ea59b3e5711bed26d86c433109b21e7/xp_af-x... even seems to indicate that with this locale the year is shown before the month?
I'm wondering what a good test would be (that covers all cases) or whether most of these tests should be dropped?
A normal order should be for "April 2009":
- MCHT_TITLE - MCHT_TITLEBTNPREV - MCHT_TITLE - MCHT_TITLEMONTH - MCHT_TITLE - MCHT_TITLEYEAR - MCHT_TITLE - MCHT_TITLEBTNNEXT - MCHT_TITLE
(That box mentioned would have MCHT_TITLEMONTH and MCHT_TITLEYEAR the other way around).
Maybe testing the order (both variations) would be fine enough?
Any thoughts?