[PATCH v2 0/2] MR2314: user32/tests: Do not stop checking the message list when skipping an optional or unsupported message.
This was either added by accident, or in an attempt to stop checking the message list once we hit a winevent hook todo [and accidentally given too wide of a scope]. However, the same commit also uses a global counter to ensure that only one winevent todo is printed, so we don't need to break here anyway.
Fixes: a72bffe768c9fe462010d7e40e20226322fb82c7
-- v2: user32/tests: Do not stop checking the message list when skipping an optional or unsupported message. user32/tests: Do not dump the message sequence when a todo succeeds on Windows.
From: Zebediah Figura zfigura@codeweavers.com
--- dlls/user32/tests/msg.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/dlls/user32/tests/msg.c b/dlls/user32/tests/msg.c index 6faaa2c2f40..303d6dbf012 100644 --- a/dlls/user32/tests/msg.c +++ b/dlls/user32/tests/msg.c @@ -2914,7 +2914,7 @@ static void ok_sequence_(const struct message *expected_list, const char *contex context, count, expected->message, actual->message); } } - if( todo && !failcount) /* succeeded yet marked todo */ + if (todo && !failcount && !strcmp(winetest_platform, "wine")) /* succeeded yet marked todo */ todo_wine { dump++; ok_( file, line)( TRUE, "%s: marked "todo_wine" but succeeds\n", context);
From: Zebediah Figura zfigura@codeweavers.com
This was either added by accident, or in an attempt to stop checking the message list once we hit a winevent hook todo [and accidentally given too wide of a scope]. However, the same commit also uses a global counter to ensure that only one winevent todo is printed, so we don't need to break in the first hunk anyway.
For trailing winevent todos, there is no global counter, so instead move the goto inside the if block.
Fixes: a72bffe768c9fe462010d7e40e20226322fb82c7 --- dlls/user32/tests/msg.c | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/dlls/user32/tests/msg.c b/dlls/user32/tests/msg.c index 303d6dbf012..d1b43455464 100644 --- a/dlls/user32/tests/msg.c +++ b/dlls/user32/tests/msg.c @@ -2853,7 +2853,6 @@ static void ok_sequence_(const struct message *expected_list, const char *contex } } expected++; - goto done; } else if (todo) { @@ -2888,9 +2887,9 @@ static void ok_sequence_(const struct message *expected_list, const char *contex ok_( file, line) (FALSE, "%s: %u: the msg sequence is not complete: expected 0x%04x - actual 0x%04x\n", context, count, expected->message, actual->message); } + goto done; } expected++; - goto done; }
if (todo)
Hi,
It looks like your patch introduced the new failures shown below. Please investigate and fix them before resubmitting your patch. If they are not new, fixing them anyway would help a lot. Otherwise please ask for the known failures list to be updated.
The tests also ran into some preexisting test failures. If you know how to fix them that would be helpful. See the TestBot job for the details:
The full results can be found at: https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=130310
Your paranoid android.
=== debian11 (32 bit report) ===
user32: msg.c:5796: Test failed: ShowWindow(SW_SHOW):child: 4: the msg 0x0047 was expected, but got msg 0x0085 instead msg.c:5796: Test failed: ShowWindow(SW_SHOW):child: 5: the msg sequence is not complete: expected 0000 - actual 0014
=== debian11 (32 bit ar:MA report) ===
user32: msg.c:5796: Test failed: ShowWindow(SW_SHOW):child: 4: the msg 0x0047 was expected, but got msg 0x0085 instead msg.c:5796: Test failed: ShowWindow(SW_SHOW):child: 5: the msg sequence is not complete: expected 0000 - actual 0014
=== debian11 (32 bit de report) ===
user32: msg.c:5796: Test failed: ShowWindow(SW_SHOW):child: 4: the msg 0x0047 was expected, but got msg 0x0085 instead msg.c:5796: Test failed: ShowWindow(SW_SHOW):child: 5: the msg sequence is not complete: expected 0000 - actual 0014
=== debian11 (32 bit fr report) ===
user32: msg.c:5796: Test failed: ShowWindow(SW_SHOW):child: 4: the msg 0x0047 was expected, but got msg 0x0085 instead msg.c:5796: Test failed: ShowWindow(SW_SHOW):child: 5: the msg sequence is not complete: expected 0000 - actual 0014
=== debian11 (32 bit he:IL report) ===
user32: msg.c:5796: Test failed: ShowWindow(SW_SHOW):child: 4: the msg 0x0047 was expected, but got msg 0x0085 instead msg.c:5796: Test failed: ShowWindow(SW_SHOW):child: 5: the msg sequence is not complete: expected 0000 - actual 0014
=== debian11 (32 bit hi:IN report) ===
user32: msg.c:5796: Test failed: ShowWindow(SW_SHOW):child: 4: the msg 0x0047 was expected, but got msg 0x0085 instead msg.c:5796: Test failed: ShowWindow(SW_SHOW):child: 5: the msg sequence is not complete: expected 0000 - actual 0014
=== debian11 (32 bit ja:JP report) ===
user32: msg.c:5796: Test failed: ShowWindow(SW_SHOW):child: 4: the msg 0x0047 was expected, but got msg 0x0085 instead msg.c:5796: Test failed: ShowWindow(SW_SHOW):child: 5: the msg sequence is not complete: expected 0000 - actual 0014
=== debian11 (32 bit zh:CN report) ===
user32: msg.c:5796: Test failed: ShowWindow(SW_SHOW):child: 4: the msg 0x0047 was expected, but got msg 0x0085 instead msg.c:5796: Test failed: ShowWindow(SW_SHOW):child: 5: the msg sequence is not complete: expected 0000 - actual 0014
=== debian11b (32 bit WoW report) ===
user32: msg.c:5796: Test failed: ShowWindow(SW_SHOW):child: 4: the msg 0x0047 was expected, but got msg 0x0085 instead msg.c:5796: Test failed: ShowWindow(SW_SHOW):child: 5: the msg sequence is not complete: expected 0000 - actual 0014
=== debian11b (64 bit WoW report) ===
user32: msg.c:5796: Test failed: ShowWindow(SW_SHOW):child: 4: the msg 0x0047 was expected, but got msg 0x0085 instead msg.c:5796: Test failed: ShowWindow(SW_SHOW):child: 5: the msg sequence is not complete: expected 0000 - actual 0014
=== debian11b (64 bit WoW report) === user32: msg.c:5796: Test failed: ShowWindow(SW_SHOW):child: 4: the msg 0x0047 was expected, but got msg 0x0085 instead msg.c:5796: Test failed: ShowWindow(SW_SHOW):child: 5: the msg sequence is not complete: expected 0000 - actual 0014
This failure was actually introduced by 33617af8145 ("server: Don't invalidate the newly exposed child region on the parent if it doesn't clip children.") and hidden due to a72bffe76.
@iamahuman, can you please take a look at this?
-
Marvin -
Zebediah Figura -
Zebediah Figura (＠zfigura)