On 10/10/06, Huw Davies <huw at codeweavers.com> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 04:45:40PM -0400, Vijay Kiran Kamuju wrote:
Add IRunnableObject stub implementation,
It's not at all clear to me what this interface should do in this context. Could you at least add a test that shows that the domdoc object should expose IRunnableObject?
Check the bug# 6341 [http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6341 ] previously I sent a patch http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2006-September/030659.html No response, so I thought its noway getting into the main tree, so no tests. Well I sent this one to the list so that it does not get lost.
Vijay, tests are exactly what you need to get things into the tree! And adding the test Huw suggests is very easy, go ahead and do that, and repost your patch with the test added (after verifying that the test passes on real windows).
Thanks for working on some of these msxml problems! - Dan
Hi, I will wait on sending tests on this one. Until the first one gets in (http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2006-September/030659.html) Then I will resend with tests. Or may be I will write tests and send them seperately, it really depends on mood tommorrow afternoon.
bye, VJ On 10/11/06, Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com wrote:
On 10/10/06, Huw Davies <huw at codeweavers.com> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 04:45:40PM -0400, Vijay Kiran Kamuju wrote:
Add IRunnableObject stub implementation,
It's not at all clear to me what this interface should do in this context. Could you at least add a test that shows that the domdoc object should expose IRunnableObject?
Check the bug# 6341 [http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6341 ] previously I sent a patch http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2006-September/030659.html No response, so I thought its noway getting into the main tree, so no tests. Well I sent this one to the list so that it does not get lost.
Vijay, tests are exactly what you need to get things into the tree! And adding the test Huw suggests is very easy, go ahead and do that, and repost your patch with the test added (after verifying that the test passes on real windows).
Thanks for working on some of these msxml problems!
- Dan
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 12:55:41AM -0400, Vijay Kiran Kamuju wrote:
I will wait on sending tests on this one. Until the first one gets in (http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2006-September/030659.html)
Ok, so let's look at that one.
I think the problem here is that ISupportErrorInfo should hang off the underlying node object (in node.c) rather than domdoc itself. All of the objects that inherit from IXMLDOMNode will then get ISupportErrorInfo for free rather than having to implement it for each node type (you'll obviously need to forward the QI through to the node implementation). It would be worth checking that QI on, for example, an attribute node does indeed return ISupportErrorInfo.
Another interesting thing to look at (although you can't really write a test for this) is to look at whether the pointer you get back from QI(ISupportErrorInfo) is 'close' to the pointer you get for QI(IXMLDOMDocument) or QI(IXMLDOMNode). If I'm right, it should be close to the latter, in your implementation it'll be close to the former.
Huw.
Huw,
Can you look at the debug log after applying the SupportInfo Patch in the bug#6341. I think QI should be done for IXMLDocument not IXMLNode. I will try to do it for IXMLNode as well.
Thanks, VJ
On 10/11/06, Huw Davies huw@codeweavers.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 12:55:41AM -0400, Vijay Kiran Kamuju wrote:
I will wait on sending tests on this one. Until the first one gets in (http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2006-September/030659.html)
Ok, so let's look at that one.
I think the problem here is that ISupportErrorInfo should hang off the underlying node object (in node.c) rather than domdoc itself. All of the objects that inherit from IXMLDOMNode will then get ISupportErrorInfo for free rather than having to implement it for each node type (you'll obviously need to forward the QI through to the node implementation). It would be worth checking that QI on, for example, an attribute node does indeed return ISupportErrorInfo.
Another interesting thing to look at (although you can't really write a test for this) is to look at whether the pointer you get back from QI(ISupportErrorInfo) is 'close' to the pointer you get for QI(IXMLDOMDocument) or QI(IXMLDOMNode). If I'm right, it should be close to the latter, in your implementation it'll be close to the former.
Huw.
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 09:00:32AM -0400, Vijay Kiran Kamuju wrote:
Huw,
Can you look at the debug log after applying the SupportInfo Patch in the bug#6341.
Well of course I see the app QI(IRunnableObject) but that doesn't mean that it should succeed.
Note there are a bunch of unimplemented methods that get called too. I'd guess createElement could be important...
Huw.
-
Dan Kegel -
Huw Davies -
Vijay Kiran Kamuju