[PATCH 0/1] MR1279: comctl32/tests: Remove a now succeeding todo_wine.

[Rémi Bernon (＠rbernon)]

Fixed by 33617af8145b6fadfe41d48968a728ff57b3064b.

[PATCH 1/1] comctl32/tests: Remove a now succeeding todo_wine.

[Rémi Bernon]

From: Rémi Bernon

Fixed by 33617af8145b6fadfe41d48968a728ff57b3064b.
---
 dlls/comctl32/tests/edit.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/dlls/comctl32/tests/edit.c b/dlls/comctl32/tests/edit.c
index 5f23fff2c9c..be3de53cdb5 100644
--- a/dlls/comctl32/tests/edit.c
+++ b/dlls/comctl32/tests/edit.c
@@ -3450,7 +3450,7 @@ static void test_change_focus(void)
     flush_sequences(sequences, NUM_MSG_SEQUENCES);
     SetFocus(hwnd);
     while (PeekMessageA(&msg, 0, 0, 0, PM_REMOVE)) DispatchMessageA(&msg);
-    ok_sequence(sequences, COMBINED_SEQ_INDEX, setfocus_combined_seq, "Set focus", TRUE);
+    ok_sequence(sequences, COMBINED_SEQ_INDEX, setfocus_combined_seq, "Set focus", FALSE);

flush_sequences(sequences, NUM_MSG_SEQUENCES);
     SetFocus(parent_wnd);

[PATCH 1/1] comctl32/tests: Remove a now succeeding todo_wine.

[Marvin]

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=125858

Your paranoid android.

=== w10pro64 (32 bit report) ===

comctl32:
edit.c:3656: Test failed: WM_IME_COMPOSITION with EIMES_GETCOMPSTRATONCE: the msg sequence is not complete: expected 0000 - actual 0084

=== w10pro64 (64 bit report) ===

comctl32:
edit.c:3656: Test failed: WM_IME_COMPOSITION with EIMES_GETCOMPSTRATONCE: the msg sequence is not complete: expected 0000 - actual 0084

=== w10pro64_en_AE_u8 (64 bit report) ===

comctl32:
edit.c:3635: Test failed: WM_IME_COMPOSITION: the msg sequence is not complete: expected 0000 - actual 0084
edit.c:3656: Test failed: WM_IME_COMPOSITION with EIMES_GETCOMPSTRATONCE: the msg sequence is not complete: expected 0000 - actual 0084

=== w10pro64_ar (64 bit report) ===

comctl32:
edit.c:3635: Test failed: WM_IME_COMPOSITION: the msg sequence is not complete: expected 0000 - actual 0084
edit.c:3656: Test failed: WM_IME_COMPOSITION with EIMES_GETCOMPSTRATONCE: the msg sequence is not complete: expected 0000 - actual 0084

=== w10pro64_zh_CN (64 bit report) ===

comctl32:
edit.c:3635: Test failed: WM_IME_COMPOSITION: the msg sequence is not complete: expected 0000 - actual 0084

=== debian11 (32 bit ja:JP report) ===

comctl32:
edit.c:3641: Test failed: WM_IME_CHAR: the msg sequence is not complete: expected 0000 - actual 0086

[Huw Davies (＠huw)]

Presumably the daily tests still passed, so it's a bit more complicated.  It may be similar to the failure mode in http://test.winehq.org/data/9d1175a4649706d8d46a7bd8d5aa291b6528bfc4/linux_f...

[Rémi Bernon (＠rbernon)]

On Mon Nov  7 18:34:44 2022 +0000, Huw Davies wrote:
> Presumably the daily tests still passed, so it's a bit more complicated.
>  It may be similar to the failure mode in http://test.winehq.org/data/9d1175a4649706d8d46a7bd8d5aa291b6528bfc4/linux_f...

The daily tests are actually never failing with a non zero return, because I think they instead upload the report. They indeed failed the same test according to the testbot reports.

[Rémi Bernon (＠rbernon)]

On Mon Nov  7 18:34:44 2022 +0000, Rémi Bernon wrote:
> The daily tests are actually never failing with a non zero return,
> because I think they instead upload the report. They indeed failed the
> same test according to the testbot reports.

See the gitlab columns in https://test.winehq.org/data/9d1175a4649706d8d46a7bd8d5aa291b6528bfc4/index_...

[Huw Davies (＠huw)]

> The daily tests are actually never failing with a non zero return, because I think they instead upload the report.

Oh, is that deliberate?
> They indeed failed the same test according to the testbot reports.

Right, I see.  So this patch is good then.

[Rémi Bernon (＠rbernon)]

> Oh, is that deliberate?

I have no idea.

[Alexandre Julliard (＠julliard)]

> > The daily tests are actually never failing with a non zero return, because I think they instead upload the report.
>
> Oh, is that deliberate?

Yes, the goal of the daily test run is to submit results to the winetest site, so it's considered successful if the report was submitted, even if the report contains failures.