Wine-Bug: https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46417 Signed-off-by: Fabian Maurer [email protected] --- dlls/user32/combo.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/dlls/user32/combo.c b/dlls/user32/combo.c index 59c2e6484c..a126922a74 100644 --- a/dlls/user32/combo.c +++ b/dlls/user32/combo.c @@ -1912,6 +1912,9 @@ LRESULT ComboWndProc_common( HWND hwnd, UINT message, WPARAM wParam, LPARAM lPar } else return CB_ERR;
+ case WM_CTLCOLORSTATIC: + case WM_CTLCOLOREDIT: + return (LRESULT)GetSysColorBrush(COLOR_WINDOW); case WM_DRAWITEM: case WM_DELETEITEM: case WM_COMPAREITEM: -- 2.23.0
Wine-Bug: https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46417 Signed-off-by: Fabian Maurer [email protected] --- dlls/comctl32/combo.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/dlls/comctl32/combo.c b/dlls/comctl32/combo.c index 8a52a0bdc0..492e21616e 100644 --- a/dlls/comctl32/combo.c +++ b/dlls/comctl32/combo.c @@ -1861,6 +1861,9 @@ static LRESULT CALLBACK COMBO_WindowProc( HWND hwnd, UINT message, WPARAM wParam return SendMessageW(lphc->hWndEdit, message, wParam, lParam); else return CB_ERR;
+ case WM_CTLCOLORSTATIC: + case WM_CTLCOLOREDIT: + return (LRESULT)GetSysColorBrush(COLOR_WINDOW); case WM_DRAWITEM: case WM_DELETEITEM: case WM_COMPAREITEM: -- 2.23.0
Hi,
While running your changed tests, 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: https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=56706
Your paranoid android.
=== debian10 (32 bit report) ===
user32: msg.c:5148: Test succeeded inside todo block: ShowWindow(SW_SHOWMINIMIZED):overlapped: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds msg.c:8716: Test failed: WaitForSingleObject failed 102 msg.c:8722: Test failed: destroy child on thread exit: 0: the msg 0x0082 was expected, but got msg 0x000f instead msg.c:8722: Test failed: destroy child on thread exit: 1: the msg 0x000f was expected, but got msg 0x0014 instead msg.c:8722: Test failed: destroy child on thread exit: 2: the msg sequence is not complete: expected 0014 - actual 0000
Report errors: user32:msg prints too much data (35949 bytes)
=== debian10 (32 bit Chinese:China report) ===
user32: msg.c:5148: Test succeeded inside todo block: ShowWindow(SW_SHOWMINIMIZED):overlapped: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds
Report errors: user32:msg prints too much data (35218 bytes)
=== debian10 (32 bit WoW report) ===
user32: msg.c:5148: Test succeeded inside todo block: ShowWindow(SW_SHOWMINIMIZED):overlapped: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds
Report errors: user32:msg prints too much data (35218 bytes)
=== debian10 (64 bit WoW report) ===
user32: msg.c:5148: Test succeeded inside todo block: ShowWindow(SW_SHOWMINIMIZED):overlapped: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds
Report errors: user32:msg prints too much data (35218 bytes)
Hi,
While running your changed tests, 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: https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=56705
Your paranoid android.
=== debian10 (32 bit report) ===
user32: msg.c:5148: Test succeeded inside todo block: ShowWindow(SW_SHOWMINIMIZED):overlapped: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds
Report errors: user32:msg prints too much data (35218 bytes)
=== debian10 (32 bit Chinese:China report) ===
user32: menu.c:2354: Test failed: test 25 msg.c:5148: Test succeeded inside todo block: ShowWindow(SW_SHOWMINIMIZED):overlapped: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds
Report errors: user32:msg prints too much data (35218 bytes)
=== debian10 (32 bit WoW report) ===
user32: msg.c:5148: Test succeeded inside todo block: ShowWindow(SW_SHOWMINIMIZED):overlapped: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds
Report errors: user32:msg prints too much data (35218 bytes)
=== debian10 (64 bit WoW report) ===
user32: msg.c:5148: Test succeeded inside todo block: ShowWindow(SW_SHOWMINIMIZED):overlapped: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds
Report errors: user32:msg prints too much data (35218 bytes)
Please add tests for this, starting with default procedure and then for specific control. Note that you could test context properties too, not just return value.
On Samstag, 21. September 2019 06:58:13 CEST you wrote:
Please add tests for this, starting with default procedure and then for specific control. Note that you could test context properties too, not just return value.
Sure thing, I sent in a new set of 6 patches for tests and a proper fix. These two patches aren't the right solution, and are superseded.
Regards, Fabian Maurer
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 10:18 PM Fabian Maurer [email protected] wrote:
Any news regarding those patches?
They were superseded a couple of time since then, with, I believe, enough feedback along the way to improve them further.
Regards, Fabian Maurer