On 11/5/18 5:40 PM, Gabriel Ivăncescu wrote:
On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 2:38 PM Nikolay Sivov nsivov@codeweavers.com wrote:
What we need first is more tests covering this series and actual implementation that you have written.
But there will be more patches that I split before I implement LBS_NODATA. And in fact the LBS_NODATA patch is pretty large by itself (mostly due to multi-column listboxes). Do you want me to send them all in one go? (it's about 9 patches or so, the last one is pretty large, couldn't split it up).
These patches, for now, don't break anything though, only correct some behavior. LBS_NODATA will still work (but very bad performance). That's why I split them. Are you sure you don't want them as it is? (then I can send the next batch)
No, I don't want them in one go, all I asked is to work to get tests committed first, and then proceed with the rest.
It's easier to see and test if it's correct when it fixes existing tests.
What do you mean? I don't think there are any existing tests for LBS_NODATA. Of course I add them as I "fix" it in the patches.
There's no tests, that's a problem exactly. What I'm asking is to send tests first, mark failing parts accordingly, and then move to improving implementation.
Apart from these behaviors, LBS_NODATA doesn't really break anything since its only purpose is for performance on large lists.
P.S. please let's focus on a single module first, user32 or comctl32, your choice. This will reduce a number of patches you have to send, and we still can duplicate for other module later.
Ok.