New conformance test for user32.dll

[Ferenc Wagner]

Hello,

I put together a new test file for dlls/user/tests (find
attached).  It tests undocumented behaviour (at least I
couldn't find a word), but one of my apps depend on it.
It's a first try, please have a look at it (I tried to
follow the Developers' Guide) and tell me what I should do.
I compiled a previous version (some code rearrangement
happened since then) with MSVC, it ran fine on XP, ME and
Win95, ie. all tests passed.

In short: a LISTBOX window can have the LBS_NOSEL style
option.  For me it seems it's only about appearance and
nothing more.  But Wine implements it in a more meaningful
way, unfortunately...

I'd like to be sure about what's correct before patching the
implementation.  Looking forward to your comments:

Feri.

Insert listbox.c into CTESTS in Makefile{,.in} to run:

[Tony Lambregts]

Ferenc Wagner wrote:
>           Hello,
>
> I put together a new test file for dlls/user/tests (find
> attached).  It tests undocumented behaviour (at least I
> couldn't find a word), but one of my apps depend on it.
> It's a first try, please have a look at it (I tried to
> follow the Developers' Guide) and tell me what I should do.
> I compiled a previous version (some code rearrangement
> happened since then) with MSVC, it ran fine on XP, ME and
> Win95, ie. all tests passed.
>
> In short: a LISTBOX window can have the LBS_NOSEL style
> option.  For me it seems it's only about appearance and
> nothing more.  But Wine implements it in a more meaningful
> way, unfortunately...
>
> I'd like to be sure about what's correct before patching the
> implementation.  Looking forward to your comments:
>                                   Feri.
>
> Insert listbox.c into CTESTS in Makefile{,.in} to run:

Patches should be in diff -u format. Please refer to the following link 
about submitting patches.

http://www.winehq.org/docs/wine-devel/patches.shtml

[Ferenc Wagner]

Tony Lambregts  writes:
> Patches should be in diff -u format. Please refer to the
> following link about submitting patches.
>
> http://www.winehq.org/docs/wine-devel/patches.shtml

Er... I didn't mean it to be submitted right now, only
getting some comments on it (thanks!).  But below is the
patch nevertheless (the new listbox.c file is attached).
Reading the devel list it also became obvious that there is
wine-patches, where I should send the final patches, should
I?  So: is this kind of hackery acceptable for eventual
inclusion?  If nobody objects, I will go on improving it (I
already did so) and occasionally send it to wine-patches.
Hmm.  What is that "patch Patch police"? :)

Feri.

Ps: If anybody wants to try, (s)he will probably need to
apply this patch to Makefile instead (or run configure).
That's why I included a note instead of a patch previously.

Index: Makefile.in
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/wine/wine/dlls/user/tests/Makefile.in,v
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -r1.3 Makefile.in
--- Makefile.in 2 Oct 2002 19:58:28 -0000       1.3
+++ Makefile.in 4 Mar 2003 22:36:41 -0000
@@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
 CTESTS = \
        class.c \
        generated.c \
+       listbox.c \
        sysparams.c \
        win.c \
        wsprintf.c

[Mike Hearn]

> Er... I didn't mean it to be submitted right now, only
> getting some comments on it (thanks!).  But below is the
> patch nevertheless (the new listbox.c file is attached).
> Reading the devel list it also became obvious that there is
> wine-patches, where I should send the final patches, should
> I?

Send all patches there, unless you are absolutely certain they'd never
be accepted! I'd send this one along, then watch the wine-cvs list
archives. If your patch doesn't get accepted, Alexandre might reply to
it on this list with why he doesn't like it, or sometimes you have to
give him a poke. Sometimes other people will reply with comments on a
pending patch.
> So: is this kind of hackery acceptable for eventual
> inclusion?  If nobody objects, I will go on improving it (I
> already did so) and occasionally send it to wine-patches.

Please do so. One of the GUI guys will comment shortly I expect.
> Hmm.  What is that "patch Patch police"? :)

Bwahahaah. The people who make sure your patch is in the right format
(unified diff, not wrapped by the mailer)