Re: richedit: Added tests for autoscrolling options based on WS_V/HSCROLL.

[Detlef Riekenberg]

On So, 2009-01-11 at 02:58 -0500, Dylan Smith wrote:
> It seems as if the autoscrolling options can be set based on whether
> WS_VSCROLL or WS_HSCROLL styles are used to create the window, but this
> is done differently between version 1.0 and 3.0 of the richedit control.
>
> I noticed this indirectly before because wordwrap is initially set only
> if the auto-horizontal scrolling is initially enabled.
>
> dlls/riched20/tests/editor.c |   30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  dlls/riched32/tests/editor.c |   32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Hi Dylan.
After testing your first Patch, i tried this one:
 patching file dlls/riched20/tests/editor.c
 Hunk #1 succeeded at 5826 (offset 23 lines).
 Hunk #2 succeeded at 5856 (offset 23 lines).
 Hunk #3 succeeded at 6281 (offset 23 lines).
 patching file dlls/riched32/tests/editor.c

All patches should apply clean.
When you send a Patchset, please mark them with [Patch x/y]
In this case, [Patch 1/8], [Patch 2/8], ...

And again, new failures in win9x due to the use of UNICODE.
(The riched32 test already produce >40 failures in Win9x)

I didn't view/test the following Patches.
Please inspect them also for UNICODE faults.

richedit: Added tests for autoscrolling options based on WS_V/HSCROLL.

[Dylan Smith]

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 6:32 AM, Detlef Riekenberg  wrote:
> Hi Dylan.
> After testing your first Patch, i tried this one:
>  patching file dlls/riched20/tests/editor.c
>  Hunk #1 succeeded at 5826 (offset 23 lines).
>  Hunk #2 succeeded at 5856 (offset 23 lines).
>  Hunk #3 succeeded at 6281 (offset 23 lines).
>  patching file dlls/riched32/tests/editor.c
>
> All patches should apply clean.
> When you send a Patchset, please mark them with [Patch x/y]
> In this case, [Patch 1/8], [Patch 2/8], ...

I don't understand the problem with applying the patch.  It applies cleanly
for me, and it seems like it applied cleanly for you too.

The changes are independent, so wouldn't that be a reason to not have them
considered a patch set.
> And again, new failures in win9x due to the use of UNICODE.
> (The riched32 test already produce >40 failures in Win9x)
>
> I didn't view/test the following Patches.
> Please inspect them also for UNICODE faults.
>
> Thanks for catching the Win9x problems, I'll fix the unicode problems

before resending.