New subject: propsys: mention that the functions are stubs

15 Jun 2010


      Hans Leidekker hans@codeweavers.com wrote:
...
On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 10:25 +0200, Francois Gouget wrote:
...
Just to confirm what André said, if the FIXME does not contain the word 
'stub', then apistats has no way to know it's a (pseudo-)stub.
Wouldn't it be sufficient for our purposes to just count every first
fixme in a WINAPI function as a stub? As it is now there's a large
percentage of fixmes that don't include the 'stub' keyword.
I tend to disagree.  Stubs should be identified, if possible, for each call.  Some calls will not activate a specific sequence of FIXMEs and in some cases, users have become confused as they don't have the technical knowledge to determine why their program is failing.
...
...
I would further argue that even a human reading the log would have no
way to know as quite a few implemented functions still dump their parameters.
So even for humans it's better to add 'stub' to the FIXME message.
I'd say we need turn those into traces and add fixmes for the
unimplemented parts, if needed.
This actually might be better, but don't TRACES only appear if you are running in debug mode?  We do want to inform our user base that a failure happened due to partially implemented code rather than give them the impression that we don't care or only implement code to make certain programs work (hacky code...)
Note:  This is only a statement of opinion, not a request for direction within the project.  If a fixme had 'stub' that means that we have implemented code to 'fake' windows functionality, whereas a real fixme means there is a problem with the code and it needs to be corrected.
James McKenzie

Re: propsys: mention that the functions are stubs