Alexandre Julliard writes:
Not really. If you want to test purely the Wine behavior, then you
shouldn't be waiting for window manager events. If the window manager
is
involved then you can't guarantee that a given window will always get
focus.
If your app breaks because the window manager do
e result of call to some window management function,
> before this function returns.
> For example my app hopes that result of call to SetFocus() will not be
> distorted in message loop due call to DestroyWindow(), that made before
> call to SetFocus().
> Is my explanation clear enough?
N
t for SetFocus() (with few todo)(Try
2).
Is anything wrong with this one?
That's mostly testing the window manager focus policy, I don't think
that makes sense. What are you trying to demonstrate with this?
I try to show that some applications rely on finishing all side focus
switc
Sergey Guralnik writes:
> I've sent next patch more than month ago, and have no comments about
> it.
>
> From 57adc6991431cd765dcdb97082263db834e4b533 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Sergey Guralnik
> Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 17:12:56 +0400
> Subject: user32/tests: Add
I've sent next patch more than month ago, and have no comments about
it.
From 57adc6991431cd765dcdb97082263db834e4b533 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sergey Guralnik
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 17:12:56 +0400
Subject: user32/tests: Add test for SetFocus() (with few todo)(Try 2).
Is anything
Dmitry Timoshkov writes:
> What kind of tests do you have in mind? Invalid window? Something else?
Yes, invalid or belonging to a different thread input.
--
Alexandre Julliard
julli...@winehq.org
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> > -if (!set_active_window( hwnd, &prev, FALSE, TRUE )) return 0;
> > +set_active_window( hwnd, &prev, FALSE, TRUE );
> > return prev;
> > }
>
> It doesn't seem right to ignore all errors. This would need some more
> tests.
What kind of tests do you have
Dmitry Timoshkov writes:
> +hwnd = WIN_GetFullHandle( hwnd );
>
> -if (!set_active_window( hwnd, &prev, FALSE, TRUE )) return 0;
> +set_active_window( hwnd, &prev, FALSE, TRUE );
> return prev;
> }
It doesn't seem right to ignore all errors. This would need some more
tests.
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
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=16207
Your paranoid android
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
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=16206
Your paranoid android
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
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=15856
Your paranoid android
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
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=15856
Your paranoid android
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
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=15855
Your paranoid android
2009/11/7 Aric Stewart :
> ---
> dlls/msctf/tests/inputprocessor.c | 7 +--
> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
Here are the results for 100 consecutive runs :
$ for i in {1..100}; do wine msctf_test.exe.so >> msctf_tests.log 2>&1; done
$ grep "tests executed" msctf_tests.
Please disregard this. I was testing the wrong version on my winvista
machine and this causes a failure.
revised version coming.
-aric
Aric Stewart wrote:
---
dlls/msctf/tests/inputprocessor.c |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
-
2009/11/7 Aric Stewart :
> ---
> dlls/msctf/tests/inputprocessor.c | 5 -
> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
Aric, is this for my versatile machine ?
--
Nicolas Le Cam
.
There is also a note in msdn about AssociateFocus which states that it
does not increment the lock possibly in contrast to SetFocus.
The documentation on these interfaces is very very sparse.
-aric
Jacek Caban wrote:
> Hi Aric,
>
> Aric Stewart wrote:
>> ---
>> dlls/msc
Hi Aric,
Aric Stewart wrote:
> ---
> dlls/msctf/threadmgr.c | 28
> 1 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
+if (!pdimFocus ||
FAILED(IUnknown_QueryInterface(pdimFocus,&IID_ITfDocumentMgr,(LPVOID*) &check)))
+return E_INVALIDARG;
+
+Thi
Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> Looks like you need a test for window activation, not focus or hooks.
> You may try to add some missing bits to win.c,test_SetActiveWindow().
May be.. I decide to test SetFocus() because in this function calls
set_active_window() and another case set_active_window
"Anatoly Lyutin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It doesn't matter for a hook if a window is visible or not,
> How I can see from this test - it is matter:
>
> /* SetFocus( hwnd ) Invisible parent, visible child */
> static const struct message SetFocusS
Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
>> Example?
>
> WM_ACTIVATEAPP, WM_NCACTIVATE, WM_ACTIVATE.
>
I shall see this..
>
> It doesn't matter for a hook if a window is visible or not,
How I can see from this test - it is matter:
/* SetFocus( hwnd ) Invisible parent, visible child */
s
"Anatoly Lyutin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The test actually doesn't do anything useful. It doesn't check
>> any focus windows
> Hmm, I can to fix it.
>> and many vital message parameters.
> Example?
WM_ACTIVATEAPP, WM_NCACTIVATE, WM_ACTIVATE.
>> Besides we
>> already have test_SetFocus() in
Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> The test actually doesn't do anything useful. It doesn't check
> any focus windows
Hmm, I can to fix it.
> and many vital message parameters.
Example?
> Besides we
> already have test_SetFocus() in win.c.
Yes, I have seen this but this test does not show issue that I have
"Anatoly Lyutin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I try to make this test (in test_ShowWindow : "/* 32 */ { SW_HIDE, TRUE,
> 0, WmHide_3, TRUE }, ") passes clear and after some changes I observe
> that SetFocus() is working strange for some case.
> After
+++ newwinedir/windows/dialog.c 2005-03-14 16:30:19.0 +0100
@@ -669,8 +669,23 @@
{
/* By returning TRUE, app has requested a default focus assignment */
dlgInfo->hwndFocus = GetNextDlgTabItem( hwnd, 0, FALSE);
-if( dlgInfo->hwndFocus )
-
dFocus = GetNextDlgTabItem( hwnd, 0, FALSE);
-if( dlgInfo->hwndFocus )
-SetFocus( dlgInfo->hwndFocus );
+if (dlgInfo->hwndFocus)
+{
+ SetFocus( dlgInfo->hwndFocus );
+ HWND hWndOldDefPushButton = NULL;
+
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 10:22:51AM +0100, Katia Maculan wrote:
> + SendMessageA (dlgInfo->hwndFocus, BM_SETSTYLE,
> BS_DEFPUSHBUTTON, TRUE);
^
Please use SendMessageW instead.
> + /*Check for a previous defpushbutton*/
> +
Ulrich Czekalla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmmm. It didn't work for me when I tried under win2k. I'll investigate it
> further.
I added a small test in dlls/user/tests/win.c if it helps.
--
Alexandre Julliard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hmmm. It didn't work for me when I tried under win2k. I'll investigate it
further.
/Ulrich
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:52:35PM -0700, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Ulrich Czekalla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > ChangeLog:
> > Ulrich Czekalla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Trying to set focus to
Ulrich Czekalla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ChangeLog:
> Ulrich Czekalla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Trying to set focus to an invisible window should fail
I don't think that's correct, setting focus to an invisible window
seems to work fine on Windows.
--
Alexandre Julliard
[EMAIL PROT
30 matches
Mail list logo
