- wine-gitlab - winehq.org

[PATCH 0/1] MR3582: winemac.drv: Support cooperative app activation in macOS 14 Sonoma.
by Tim Clem (＠tclem) 16 Aug '23

16 Aug '23

Starting in Sonoma, apps can no longer force themselves to the foreground with -activateIgnoringOtherApps:. winemac currently does that in a few places - when an app creates its first window, and in the implementation of APIs like SetFocus. There's nothing we can do to work around the new behavior in the general case. This patch makes Wine apps running in the same prefix yield to one another, so that windows from multiple EXEs can at least behave as intended. --- As noted in a comment, there's an inherent race condition in handling this issue the way I've done it here. Sonoma does provide another API that would theoretically alleviate that, but in practice it has some quirks that make it unsuitable. Gory details follow. An app can yield activation to either another `NSRunningApplication` (`-yieldActivationToApplication:`) or to the bundle identifier of an application that may not have launched yet (`-yieldActivationToApplicationWithBundleIdentifier:`). Ideally we could just use the latter to issue a blanket yield to the loader/preloader. A temporary roadblock: yielding to the bundle ID of the loader/preloader doesn't work at all at the moment. It seems that the new APIs rely on LaunchServices' picture of the world, and even though the loader & preloader have an embedded Info.plist, LS only seems to notice them if they're actually in a .app bundle. I hacked that together locally, and yielding to a bundled preloader works, but... Yields to bundle IDs seem to be canceled if the user interacts with the yielding application in certain ways. This includes clicking or typing into a window, or moving a window around. This is probably part of the "heuristics" that Apple mentioned are involved in deciding whether to let an app come forward. So, it seems that we need to issue yields directly in response to another app trying to activate itself, rather than trying to do it preemptively. The distributed notification in this patch was the cleanest way I could think to orchestrate that. -- https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/3582

2 1

[PATCH v2 0/1] MR3568: gdiplus: implement PixelOffsetModeHighQuality for GdipDrawImagePointsRect
by Bartosz Kosiorek (＠gang65) 16 Aug '23

16 Aug '23

After investigation, it looks like the PixelOffsetModeHalf/PixelOffsetModeHighQuality is using floating point numbers, while PixelOffsetModeNone/PixelOffsetModeHighSpeed is using integers to calculate bitmap colours. After using floating numbers, most tests are passing now. -- v2: gdiplus: implement PixelOffsetModeHighQuality for GdipDrawImagePointsRect https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/3568

4 6

[PATCH 0/1] MR3581: gdiplus: add support for GdipPathIterNextPathType
by Bartosz Kosiorek (＠gang65) 16 Aug '23

16 Aug '23

I have covered implementation with additional test cases. -- https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/3581

2 1

[PATCH 0/3] MR3578: freopen() fix.
by eric pouech (＠epo) 16 Aug '23

16 Aug '23

I stumbled onto this while using freopen() for debugging purposes. Basically, freopen() fails if the FILE has been created with an invalid handle. So, this MR contains: - basic tests for freopen (no issue there, just for coverage purposes) - tests for freopen on FILE with invalid handle - fix for freopen -- https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/3578

3 4

[PATCH 0/1] MR3580: cscript: Build as CUI application.
by Jacek Caban (＠jacek) 16 Aug '23

16 Aug '23

-- https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/3580

2 1

[PATCH 0/7] MR3552: include: Add WinRT applicationmodel definitions.
by Mohamad Al-Jaf (＠maljaf) 16 Aug '23

16 Aug '23

-- https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/3552

4 9

[PATCH 0/3] MR3570: winegstreamer: Implement GetStreamSink{Count,ByIndex,ById} for media sink.
by Ziqing Hui (＠zhui) 16 Aug '23

16 Aug '23

-- https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/3570

3 4

Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] MR3439: mf: Implement basic urlmon scheme handler.
by Rémi Bernon (＠rbernon) 16 Aug '23

16 Aug '23

Anything else I should do here? -- https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/3439#note_42479

1 0

[PATCH v5 0/6] MR3418: Draft: Add tryok() for tests that may need multiple attempts to succeed
by Francois Gouget (＠fgouget) 16 Aug '23

16 Aug '23

This is meant to simplify testing conditions that generally hold true but may occasionally fail due to interference from external factors (such as processes that start / stop, network connections being opened / closed, etc). The trick is to loop a few times on the set of flaky conditions until they succeed. During the last attempt all failures are recorded as usual, while in the previous runs, the tryok() failures area ignored but cause one more attempt to be made. The simplest case looks like this: LOOP_ON_FLAKY_TESTS(3) { // ok() failures are never ignored and not retried ok(..., "check 1", ...); // tryok() failures are ignored except on the last attempt tryok(..., "check 2", ...); } There is also: * attempt_retry() which marks the current attempt as failed as if calling tryok(0), and returns true if another attempt can be made. * attempt_failed() which returns true if an ok() call failed. --- This is independent from the 'flaky' mechanism which adds some naming constraints. The loop macro is still called LOOP_ON_FLAKY_TESTS() despite being unrelated to the flaky mechanism. The attempt_retry() and attempt_failed() macro names also don't make it obvious that they are related to tryok(). I think this mechanism is better than the flaky one because a flaky test can go bad without anyone noticing, whereas if a tryok() starts failing systematically it will cause a real failure. The other side of that coin is that, unlike flaky, the tryok() mechanism does not entirely eliminate the possibility of getting a failure, it just reduces it; though by adjusting the maximum number of attempts one can achieve an arbitrarily low failure rate. For instance if an ok() call fails 10% of the time and one wants a maximum of 1 in a million failure rate, use LOOP_ON_FLAKY_TESTS(6). The cost is an increased run time in the worst case. This also limits the use of this mechanism to tests that have a reasonably low failure rate to start with (otherwise one has to loop too many times). Also note that there are cases where looping essentially reduce the failure rate to zero. For instance ieframe:webbrowser fails if IE creates a net session while the test is counting them. But IE only creates the one net session on start up so trying even one more time should guarantee that the test will succeed. Other cases like scheduling delays and the creation of network connections are more probabilistic in nature. Maybe a comment in test.h should offer some guideline as to the target failure rate. Eventually this may replace the flaky mechanism but that depends on how well it works in practice and how practical it is to loop on flaky tests. It seems to be going well in the few cases I looked at. But I think this mechanism has value even if the two end up coexisting indefinitely. This MR uses the tryok() in some actual tests for illustration and testing purposes. The final MR will probably split most of those off to separate MRs. -- v5: ieframe/tests: Work around a network session race condition. advapi32/tests: Replace the custom loop with the tryok() mechanism. ntdll/tests: Use tryok() to fix a free disk space race with other processes. kernel32/tests: Use tryok() to fix a heap race with other processes. tests: Add tryok() for tests that sometimes get outside interference. tests: Update the documentation. https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/3418

2 9

[PATCH 0/1] MR3577: ieframe/tests: Use less strict checks in session count tests.
by Jacek Caban (＠jacek) 16 Aug '23

16 Aug '23

-- https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/3577

3 6

2025

2024

2023

2022

wine-gitlab