Re: user32: Protect from setting as a window owner one of window's succesors.

Hi,

While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures.
Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be
wrong, but could you please double-check?
Full results can be found at
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=4287

Your paranoid android.

=== W98SE (32 bit win) ===
win.c:110: Test failed: Wrong result for GWL_HWNDPARENT 0000076C expected 00000000
win.c:114: Test failed: Wrong result for GW_OWNER 0000076C expected 00000000
win.c:388: Test failed: GWL_HWNDPARENT return value 0000076C expected 0

=== W7PRO (32 bit win) ===
win.c:827: Test failed: wrong dwWindowStatus: 0000 != 0001 active 006E01AE fg 00030050 in hook HCBT_SETFOCUS
win.c:827: Test failed: wrong dwWindowStatus: 0000 != 0001 active 007001AE fg 00030050 in hook HCBT_SETFOCUS
win.c:827: Test failed: wrong dwWindowStatus: 0000 != 0001 active 000501A0 fg 00030050 in hook HCBT_SETFOCUS
win.c:2668: Test failed: GetActiveWindow() = 00000000
win.c:2668: Test failed: GetFocus() = 00000000
win.c:2694: Test failed: GetActiveWindow() = 00000000
win.c:2694: Test failed: GetFocus() = 00000000
win.c:827: Test failed: wrong dwWindowStatus: 0000 != 0001 active 000601A0 fg 00030050 in hook HCBT_SETFOCUS
win.c:827: Test failed: wrong dwWindowStatus: 0000 != 0001 active 000501A2 fg 00030050 in hook HCBT_SETFOCUS
win.c:2753: Test failed: GetActiveWindow() = 00000000
win.c:2753: Test failed: GetFocus() = 00000000
win.c:827: Test failed: wrong dwWindowStatus: 0000 != 0001 active 000C016C fg 00030050 in hook HCBT_SETFOCUS
win.c:827: Test failed: wrong dwWindowStatus: 0000 != 0001 active 002E01A2 fg 00030050 in hook HCBT_SETFOCUS
win.c:827: Test failed: wrong dwWindowStatus: 0000 != 0001 active 002F01A2 fg 00030050 in hook HCBT_SETFOCUS
win.c:827: Test failed: wrong dwWindowStatus: 0000 != 0001 active 000401A4 fg 00030050 in hook HCBT_SETFOCUS
win.c:827: Test failed: wrong dwWindowStatus: 0000 != 0001 active 000801A4 fg 00030050 in hook HCBT_SETFOCUS
win.c:827: Test failed: wrong dwWindowStatus: 0000 != 0001 active 000901A4 fg 00030050 in hook HCBT_SETFOCUS
win.c:827: Test failed: wrong dwWindowStatus: 0000 != 0001 active 001801A0 fg 00030050 in hook HCBT_SETFOCUS
win.c:827: Test failed: wrong dwWindowStatus: 0000 != 0001 active 000401A8 fg 00030050 in hook HCBT_SETFOCUS
win.c:827: Test failed: wrong dwWindowStatus: 0000 != 0001 active 000C016C fg 00030050 in hook HCBT_SETFOCUS

user32: Protect from setting as a window owner one of window's succesors.

[Dmitry Timoshkov]

 (Marvin) wrote:
> === W98SE (32 bit win) ===
> win.c:110: Test failed: Wrong result for GWL_HWNDPARENT 0000076C expected 00000000
> win.c:114: Test failed: Wrong result for GW_OWNER 0000076C expected 00000000
> win.c:388: Test failed: GWL_HWNDPARENT return value 0000076C expected 0

This test existed before my patch, probably it was failing before as well.
> === W7PRO (32 bit win) ===
> win.c:827: Test failed: wrong dwWindowStatus: 0000 != 0001 active 006E01AE fg 00030050 in hook HCBT_SETFOCUS
> win.c:827: Test failed: wrong dwWindowStatus: 0000 != 0001 active 007001AE fg 00030050 in hook HCBT_SETFOCUS
> win.c:827: Test failed: wrong dwWindowStatus: 0000 != 0001 active 000501A0 fg 00030050 in hook HCBT_SETFOCUS
> win.c:2668: Test failed: GetActiveWindow() = 00000000
> win.c:2668: Test failed: GetFocus() = 00000000
> win.c:2694: Test failed: GetActiveWindow() = 00000000
> win.c:2694: Test failed: GetFocus() = 00000000

...

These are unrelated to the new test, and look like a usual set
of intermittent win.c failures.

user32: Protect from setting as a window owner one of window's succesors.

[Alexandre Julliard]

Dmitry Timoshkov  writes:
>  (Marvin) wrote:
> > === W98SE (32 bit win) ===
> > win.c:110: Test failed: Wrong result for GWL_HWNDPARENT 0000076C expected 00000000
> > win.c:114: Test failed: Wrong result for GW_OWNER 0000076C expected 00000000
> > win.c:388: Test failed: GWL_HWNDPARENT return value 0000076C expected 0
>
> This test existed before my patch, probably it was failing before as well.

I don't think so.