wine-devel May 2017

wine-devel@winehq.org

52 participants
182 discussions

Re: [1/4] ole32/test: Add InitCache test
by Huw Davies 03 May '17

03 May '17

On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 06:10:44PM +0800, Wei Xie wrote: > From 4f8b94b5a8c7739901eae8f19317ca6255911d20 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Wei xie <xiewei(a)linuxdeepin.com> > Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 18:07:22 +0800 > Subject: [PATCH 1/4] ole32/test: Add InitCache test ole32/test: -> ole32/tests: > +static HRESULT WINAPI DataObject2_QueryInterface( > + IDataObject* iface, > + REFIID riid, > + void** ppvObject) > +{ > + CHECK_EXPECTED_METHOD("DataObject2_QueryInterface"); > + > + if (IsEqualIID(riid, &IID_IDataObject) || IsEqualIID(riid, &IID_IUnknown)) > + { > + *ppvObject = iface; > + return S_OK; > + } > + *ppvObject = NULL; > + return S_OK; > +} There's no need to create a new IDataObject implementation. Use the existing one and add a file-scope variable to control what _GetData does (which is all you really care about for this test). > +static HRESULT WINAPI DataObject2_GetData( > + IDataObject* iface, > + LPFORMATETC pformatetcIn, > + STGMEDIUM* pmedium) > +{ > + *pformatetcIn = FormatEtc; > + *pmedium = StgMedium; > + return S_OK; > +} You're not checking this method is called, which should be one of the goals of this test! pfomratetcIn is an [in] variable, so assigning things to it is useless. > @@ -1838,10 +1994,23 @@ todo_wine { > > DeleteDC(hdcMem); > > - todo_wine { You remove a todo_wine here and yet this patch doesn't change Wine's implementation, so this will produce a failure. The test must run cleanly on Wine (and Windows) after just this patch is applied. If you fix the implementation later on in the series, then remove the todo_wine in that patch, not this one. > + /* IDataObject_GetData Invalid */ I don't understand how this comment relates to the code. > hr = IOleCache2_InitCache(pOleCache, &DataObject); > ok(hr == CACHE_E_NOCACHE_UPDATED, "IOleCache_InitCache should have returned CACHE_E_NOCACHE_UPDATED instead of 0x%08x\n", hr); > - } > + > + fmtetc.ptd = NULL; > + fmtetc.dwAspect = DVASPECT_CONTENT; > + fmtetc.lindex = -1; > + fmtetc.cfFormat = CF_BITMAP; > + fmtetc.tymed = TYMED_GDI; > + stgmedium.tymed = TYMED_GDI; > + stgmedium.hBitmap = CreateCompatibleBitmap(hdcMem, 100, 100); > + stgmedium.pUnkForRelease = NULL; > + IDataObject_SetData(&DataObject2, &fmtetc, &stgmedium, FALSE); > + > + /* IOleCache2_InitCache not need IOleCache2_Cache first */ > + hr = IOleCache2_InitCache(pOleCache, &DataObject2); > + ok(hr == CACHE_E_NOCACHE_UPDATED, "IOleCache2_InitCache should have returned CACHE_E_NOCACHE_UPDATED instead of 0x%08x\n", hr); Why is the hunk even necessary, you're just calling InitCache again below a test that shows it fails. > > IPersistStorage_Release(pPS); > IViewObject_Release(pViewObject); > @@ -1851,6 +2020,44 @@ todo_wine { > CHECK_NO_EXTRA_METHODS(); > } > > + hdcMem = CreateCompatibleDC(NULL); > + fmtetc.ptd = NULL; > + fmtetc.dwAspect = DVASPECT_CONTENT; > + fmtetc.lindex = -1; > + fmtetc.cfFormat = CF_BITMAP; > + fmtetc.tymed = TYMED_GDI; > + stgmedium.tymed = TYMED_GDI; > + stgmedium.hBitmap = CreateCompatibleBitmap(hdcMem, 100, 100); > + stgmedium.pUnkForRelease = NULL; > + IDataObject_SetData(&DataObject2, &fmtetc, &stgmedium, FALSE); > + > + expected_method_list = methods_cacheinit; > + > + hr = CreateDataCache(NULL, &CLSID_NULL, &IID_IOleCache2, (LPVOID *)&pOleCache); > + ok_ole_success(hr, "CreateDataCache"); > + > + hr = IOleCache2_QueryInterface(pOleCache, &IID_IViewObject2, (LPVOID *)&pViewObject2); > + ok_ole_success(hr, "IOleCache_QueryInterface(IID_IViewObject2)"); > + > + hr = IOleCache2_Cache(pOleCache, &fmtetc, 0, &dwConnection); > + ok_ole_success(hr, "IOleCache2_Cache"); > + hr = IOleCache2_InitCache(pOleCache, &DataObject2); > + ok_ole_success(hr, "IOleCache2_InitCache"); > + > + hr = IViewObject2_SetAdvise(pViewObject2, DVASPECT_CONTENT, ADVF_PRIMEFIRST, &AdviseSink); > + ok_ole_success(hr, "IViewObject2_SetAdvise"); > + > + hr = IViewObject2_GetExtent(pViewObject2, DVASPECT_CONTENT, -1, NULL, &sz ); > + ok_ole_success(hr, "IViewObject2_GetExtent"); > + > + hr = IViewObject2_Draw(pViewObject2, DVASPECT_CONTENT, -1, NULL, NULL, NULL, hdcMem, &rcBounds, NULL, draw_continue, 0xdeadbeef); > + ok_ole_success(hr, "IViewObject2_GetExtent"); > + > + IViewObject2_Release(pViewObject2); > + IOleCache2_Release(pOleCache); > + > + DeleteDC(hdcMem); For this bit of the test, drop the IViewObject calls. What we care about is testing InitCache(). Then I suggest calling _Cache twice with two different formats and checking that _InitCache calls DataObject_GetData for those two formats. You'll need to make DataObject_GetData respond to these two different formats. It's a bit more complicated than that however because in the CF_BITMAP case _InitCache apparently calls _GetData with CF_DIB (this is part of the cache's ability to use dibs instead of bitmaps and vice-versa). You may want to avoid using CF_BITMAP to test this at this stage (we can add CF_BITMAP <-> CF_DIB tests later). Huw.

1 0

Re: [PATCH resend] comctl32: When adding a scrollbar to a listview, update the other one.
by Alistair Leslie-Hughes 03 May '17

03 May '17

Hi Alex, On 03/05/17 14:53, Alex Henrie wrote: > Cc: Nikolay Sivov <nsivov(a)codeweavers.com> > +static void LISTVIEW_UpdateScroll(LISTVIEW_INFO *infoPtr) > +{ > + INT dx, dy; > + > + if ((infoPtr->dwStyle & LVS_NOSCROLL) || !is_redrawing(infoPtr)) return; > + > + /* Setting the horizontal scroll can change the listview size > + * (and potentially everything else) so we need to recompute > + * everything again for the vertical scroll and vice-versa > + */ > + > + dx = LISTVIEW_UpdateHScroll(infoPtr); > + dy = LISTVIEW_UpdateVScroll(infoPtr); > + dx += LISTVIEW_UpdateHScroll(infoPtr); > + dy += LISTVIEW_UpdateVScroll(infoPtr); > + Is there any reason your calling update twice for each control? Best Regards Alistair Leslie-Hughes

2 1

Re: [PATCH resend] comctl32: When adding a scrollbar to a listview, update the other one.
by Alistair Leslie-Hughes 03 May '17

03 May '17

1 0

Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] user32: Fix the calculation of system metrics icon sizes.
by Marvin 02 May '17

02 May '17

2 1

Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] user32: Change IsProcessDPIAware() to always return TRUE.
by Marvin 02 May '17

02 May '17

1 0

Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] user32: Change IsProcessDPIAware() to always return TRUE.
by Marvin 02 May '17

02 May '17

1 0

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] ddraw: Validate that non-fill blits have a source surface in ddraw_surface7_Blt().
by Marvin 02 May '17

02 May '17

1 0

Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] user32: Fix the calculation of system metrics icon sizes.
by Marvin 02 May '17

02 May '17

1 0

Re: [PATCH 4/6] user32: Fix the calculation of system metrics icon sizes.
by Marvin 02 May '17

02 May '17

Hi, While running your changed tests on Windows, 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=30703 Your paranoid android. === wxppro (32 bit sysparams) === sysparams.c:2825: Test failed: GetSystemMetrics(SM_CXSMICON): expected 16 actual 20 sysparams.c:2826: Test failed: GetSystemMetrics(SM_CYSMICON): expected 16 actual 20 === wvistau64 (32 bit sysparams) === sysparams.c:2825: Test failed: GetSystemMetrics(SM_CXSMICON): expected 16 actual 18 sysparams.c:2826: Test failed: GetSystemMetrics(SM_CYSMICON): expected 16 actual 18 === w7u (32 bit sysparams) === sysparams.c:2825: Test failed: GetSystemMetrics(SM_CXSMICON): expected 4 actual 6 sysparams.c:2826: Test failed: GetSystemMetrics(SM_CYSMICON): expected 4 actual 6 === w8 (32 bit sysparams) === sysparams.c:2517: Test failed: Waiting for the WM_DISPLAYCHANGE message timed out sysparams.c:2528: Test failed: Set bpp 32, but WM_DISPLAYCHANGE reported bpp -1 sysparams.c:2825: Test failed: GetSystemMetrics(SM_CXSMICON): expected 4 actual 16 sysparams.c:2826: Test failed: GetSystemMetrics(SM_CYSMICON): expected 4 actual 16 === w1064 (32 bit sysparams) === sysparams.c:204: Test failed: Unexpected WM_DISPLAYCHANGE message sysparams.c:2523: Test failed: WM_DISPLAYCHANGE was sent with wParam 32 despite mode change failure sysparams.c:2528: Test failed: Set bpp 32, but WM_DISPLAYCHANGE reported bpp -1 sysparams.c:204: Test failed: Unexpected WM_DISPLAYCHANGE message sysparams.c:2825: Test failed: GetSystemMetrics(SM_CXSMICON): expected 4 actual 16 sysparams.c:2826: Test failed: GetSystemMetrics(SM_CYSMICON): expected 4 actual 16 === wvistau64 (64 bit sysparams) === sysparams.c:2825: Test failed: GetSystemMetrics(SM_CXSMICON): expected 16 actual 18 sysparams.c:2826: Test failed: GetSystemMetrics(SM_CYSMICON): expected 16 actual 18 === w1064 (64 bit sysparams) === sysparams.c:2825: Test failed: GetSystemMetrics(SM_CXSMICON): expected 4 actual 16 sysparams.c:2826: Test failed: GetSystemMetrics(SM_CYSMICON): expected 4 actual 16

2 1

Re: [PATCH 6/6] user32: Change IsProcessDPIAware() to always return TRUE.
by Marvin 02 May '17

02 May '17

Hi, While running your changed tests on Windows, 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=30704 Your paranoid android. === wxppro (32 bit sysparams) === sysparams.c:2827: Test failed: GetSystemMetrics(SM_CXSMICON): expected 16 actual 20 sysparams.c:2828: Test failed: GetSystemMetrics(SM_CYSMICON): expected 16 actual 20 === wvistau64 (32 bit sysparams) === sysparams.c:2827: Test failed: GetSystemMetrics(SM_CXSMICON): expected 16 actual 18 sysparams.c:2828: Test failed: GetSystemMetrics(SM_CYSMICON): expected 16 actual 18 === w7u (32 bit sysparams) === sysparams.c:2827: Test failed: GetSystemMetrics(SM_CXSMICON): expected 4 actual 6 sysparams.c:2828: Test failed: GetSystemMetrics(SM_CYSMICON): expected 4 actual 6 === w8 (32 bit sysparams) === sysparams.c:2519: Test failed: Waiting for the WM_DISPLAYCHANGE message timed out sysparams.c:2530: Test failed: Set bpp 32, but WM_DISPLAYCHANGE reported bpp -1 sysparams.c:2827: Test failed: GetSystemMetrics(SM_CXSMICON): expected 4 actual 16 sysparams.c:2828: Test failed: GetSystemMetrics(SM_CYSMICON): expected 4 actual 16 sysparams.c:2975: Test failed: got 96, dpi 96, real_dpi 0 === w1064 (32 bit sysparams) === sysparams.c:2827: Test failed: GetSystemMetrics(SM_CXSMICON): expected 4 actual 16 sysparams.c:2828: Test failed: GetSystemMetrics(SM_CYSMICON): expected 4 actual 16 sysparams.c:2975: Test failed: got 96, dpi 96, real_dpi 0 === wvistau64 (64 bit sysparams) === sysparams.c:2827: Test failed: GetSystemMetrics(SM_CXSMICON): expected 16 actual 18 sysparams.c:2828: Test failed: GetSystemMetrics(SM_CYSMICON): expected 16 actual 18 === w1064 (64 bit sysparams) === sysparams.c:2827: Test failed: GetSystemMetrics(SM_CXSMICON): expected 4 actual 16 sysparams.c:2828: Test failed: GetSystemMetrics(SM_CYSMICON): expected 4 actual 16 sysparams.c:2975: Test failed: got 96, dpi 96, real_dpi 0

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

wine-devel May 2017