On 04/05/16 17:55, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Jacek Caban jacek@codeweavers.com wrote:
I will ask you one more time to go back to the code and being technical instead of personal.
Hmm? My comments have pure technical background, all I ask is about adding more tests to show that your patch is correct and to prevent possible regressions in future.
And if you want me to take you seriously as a reviewer, then start reading the code. Let me read it for you. We call EnableWindow() in two functions:
1) DIALOG_CreateIndirect Before and after my patch, we use exactly the same window in DIALOG_CreateIndirect: I didn't change that logic at all. Do you see it?
2) DIALOG_DoDialogBox In DIALOG_DoDialogBox we currently use GetWindow(GW_OWNER) (which is a subject for future changes). My patch doesn't change it as well. Here we have two cases:
2a) dialog is WS_CHILD: For WS_CHILD, owner is NULL with and without my patch. 2b) For other cases, we have a real owner, but then again, the owner will be the same before and after my patch. We know that, I added a test and fix for that in [1] and I ensure that in tests included to the patch.
End of story.
As I told you, I will write a patch for that, when I will work on that. This patch is about other, unrelated, issue that I do test in the patch.
If that's too much of an additional effort for you for some reason then I have no idea why you decided to work on this at all, just drop this, user32 is too complex area for hasty craft, and requires a lot of time to write the tests and investigate things.
And that's personal again.
Jacek
[1] http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/commitdiff/d13a44e4aa12fa5ad3498c39934...