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)
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.
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.