Re: oleaut32/tests: add tests for OleLoadPictureFile(Ex) and OleLoadPicturePath (resend) [2/2]
Jeremy Drake w...@jdrake.com writes: Is there anything wrong with these two patches? I'd really like to see these tests go in, so hopefully someone will decide to tackle this olepicture stuff. At the very least, putting the stubs in for OleLoadPictureFile (patch 1/2) keeps my app from crashing... Sorry but I'm not going to accept your patches in this area since you looked at the disassembled code. Probably your best bet is to file a bug about the missing function and hope that someone else picks it up. -- Alexandre Julliard julli...@winehq.org
Re: oleaut32/tests: add tests for OleLoadPictureFile(Ex) and OleLoadPicturePath (resend) [2/2]
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009, Alexandre Julliard wrote: Jeremy Drake w...@jdrake.com writes: Is there anything wrong with these two patches? I'd really like to see these tests go in, so hopefully someone will decide to tackle this olepicture stuff. At the very least, putting the stubs in for OleLoadPictureFile (patch 1/2) keeps my app from crashing... Sorry but I'm not going to accept your patches in this area since you looked at the disassembled code. Probably your best bet is to file a bug about the missing function and hope that someone else picks it up. Right. That's why I abandoned writing a patch to implement the functions, and instead focused on writing test cases so others could implement them. Is writing test cases also verboten for someone who has seen disassembly? It was my understanding that that was the acceptable way for me to move forward with this.
Re: oleaut32/tests: add tests for OleLoadPictureFile(Ex) and OleLoadPicturePath (resend) [2/2]
Jeremy Drake w...@jdrake.com writes: Right. That's why I abandoned writing a patch to implement the functions, and instead focused on writing test cases so others could implement them. Is writing test cases also verboten for someone who has seen disassembly? Yes, it's better to avoid it, because then you may be testing things that you know the function is doing internally but that may not actually matter. Tests have to treat the target dll as a black box, and if you looked inside then it's no longer a true black box. Sorry about that, but we really have to play it safe, for obvious reasons. -- Alexandre Julliard julli...@winehq.org
Re: oleaut32/tests: add tests for OleLoadPictureFile(Ex) and OleLoadPicturePath (resend) [2/2]
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009, Alexandre Julliard wrote: Yes, it's better to avoid it, because then you may be testing things that you know the function is doing internally but that may not actually matter. Tests have to treat the target dll as a black box, and if you looked inside then it's no longer a true black box. Sorry about that, but we really have to play it safe, for obvious reasons. I understand. But, can we at least get the [1/2] patch in, that adds stubs for OleLoadPictureFile and OleLoadPictureFileEx that just trace FIXMEs and return E_NOTIMPL? There's definitely nothing in there that I could have learned from disassembly, and it would at least keep my app from crashing.
Re: oleaut32/tests: add tests for OleLoadPictureFile(Ex) and OleLoadPicturePath (resend) [2/2]
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009, Jeremy Drake wrote: --- dlls/oleaut32/tests/olepicture.c | 321 ++ 1 files changed, 321 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) Is there anything wrong with these two patches? I'd really like to see these tests go in, so hopefully someone will decide to tackle this olepicture stuff. At the very least, putting the stubs in for OleLoadPictureFile (patch 1/2) keeps my app from crashing...
