Submitted issue #i92984, to be fixed in CWS jsktestfixes1, target 3.0.
With luck we can get the fix into ooo300m4.

Joerg

On 08/21/08 10:26 AM, Joerg Skottke wrote:
> Hi Lihua,
> 
> On 08/21/08 04:27 AM, Zhu Lihua wrote:
>> Hi Joerg,
>>
>> Thanks for your reply.
>>
>> I'm using windows xp. As the first email I wrote, "Use OpenOffice.org 
>> dialog" is checked, but I get a warning messge telling me "This test needs 
>> the OpenOffice.org filepicker to be set as default" .
> Ouch.
>> According the script:
>>     if ( not gUseSysDlg ) then
>>         warnlog( "This test needs the OpenOffice.org filepicker to be set as 
>> default" )
>>         goto endsub
>>     endif
> To me this sounds as if the global variable (gUseSysDlg) has an incorrect 
> value.
> I am quite certain that - despite the unfortunate naming of the variable -
> gUseSysDlg = TRUE means that "The OOo file picker is enabled" and
> gUseSysDlg = FALSE means that "The OOo file picker is _not_ enabled"
>> If "Use OpenOffice.org dialog" is checked, testing script will NOT run. So, 
>> do you mean this testcase are designed to run when "Use OpenOffice.org" is 
>> UNCHECKED, or when we use SYSTEM dialog?
> We can only test the OOo filepicker. Using the system filepicker makes the 
> test crash as we cannot access its controls.
>> But it seems that the "Use OpenOffice.org dialog" are set to default when 
>> the script initializes, and all the other testcases are run with "Use 
>> OpenOffice.org" is checked, or use openoffice.org dialog.
> Yes, that is my understanding too. I _believe_ that we explicitly set the OOo 
> file picker.
>> So it seems that these 2 testcases will never have a chance to run. It's 
>> kind of weird.
> Actually they do, for me and my fellow test writers, we've never seen the 
> warning.
>> I'm looking forward for your further comments, thanks again.
> I guess what I can do is to look at the code and check whether we not only 
> check for but really set the dialog as default.
> If this is so, the tiny check for the correct file picker would be obsolete 
> and could be removed.
> 
> Thank you for this valuable hint!
> 
> Best regards,
> Joerg
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to