Re: gdi32 test
Thursday, January 5, 2006, 2:15:21 AM, Stefan Leichter wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 5. Januar 2006 06:36 schrieb Dmitry Timoshkov: >> "Stefan Leichter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > ChangeLog >> > --- >> > add a test for CreateDCW >> >> 1. there is no need to import CreateDCW dynamically, it always exists >> 2. dlls/user/tests/monitor.c,test_enumdisplaydevices() test already >> does this, so your test is redundant. > Does test_enumdisplaydevices() return any todo:s to you on wine? Not for me. > The new tests returns a todo, so why do you think it is redundant? > You can call the new test a reminder what is still missing in wine It is already fixed. And I added a patch to test that as well. It's a bit different then yours. Vitaliy.
Re: gdi32 test
"Stefan Leichter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Does test_enumdisplaydevices() return any todo:s to you on wine? Not for me. The new tests returns a todo, so why do you think it is redundant? In which way new test fails for you? GDI should be able to handle "\\.\DISPLAY1" in CreateDC these days. You can call the new test a reminder what is still missing in wine Sure, once you fix it to pass on Win9x as well as remove calling CreateDCW via a pointer. -- Dmitry.
Re: gdi32 test
Am Donnerstag, 5. Januar 2006 06:36 schrieb Dmitry Timoshkov: > "Stefan Leichter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ChangeLog > > --- > > add a test for CreateDCW > > 1. there is no need to import CreateDCW dynamically, it always exists > 2. dlls/user/tests/monitor.c,test_enumdisplaydevices() test already > does this, so your test is redundant. Does test_enumdisplaydevices() return any todo:s to you on wine? Not for me. The new tests returns a todo, so why do you think it is redundant? You can call the new test a reminder what is still missing in wine -- Bye Stefan
Re: gdi32 test
"Stefan Leichter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ChangeLog --- add a test for CreateDCW 1. there is no need to import CreateDCW dynamically, it always exists 2. dlls/user/tests/monitor.c,test_enumdisplaydevices() test already does this, so your test is redundant. -- Dmitry.
Re: gdi32 test failing
"Dmitry Timoshkov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Jakob Eriksson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> http://test.winehq.org/data/200501151000/2000_JakobEriksson/gdi32:metafile.txt >> >> This fails. It shouldn't, because I ran winetest manually. >> >> http://test.winehq.org/data/200501151000/2000_JakobEriksson/version.txt >> >> >> what's up with that? > > The test still passes for me under win2k SP4. You have to investigate > what's going on. Although I'm compiling the metafile test separately > using my small test environment, that should not change anything for > the test itself. It passes under XP, too. (submitted) -- Feri.
Re: gdi32 test failing
"Jakob Eriksson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://test.winehq.org/data/200501151000/2000_JakobEriksson/gdi32:metafile.txt > > This fails. It shouldn't, because I ran winetest manually. > > http://test.winehq.org/data/200501151000/2000_JakobEriksson/version.txt > > > what's up with that? The test still passes for me under win2k SP4. You have to investigate what's going on. Although I'm compiling the metafile test separately using my small test environment, that should not change anything for the test itself. -- Dmitry.
