Jerome Leclanche wrote:
> I think the general feeling is that Pending should be renamed to "Decision
> pending" and that more feedback is needed at least in the form of "this is
> the wrong approach" or "this may be the right approach, explain yourself
> better". But the general feeling is that "
On 04/08/2012 01:44 PM, Daniel Jelinski wrote:
Hardware messages are an alternative, but I couldn't find any relevant
examples, so I followed the path of least resistance.
These tests you wrote won't work. Emulating mouse up/down events with
anything other then hardware messages will not exercis
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Bruno Jesus <00cp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> > If the behavior is opposite on OSes
> > earlier than XP then you may wish to have it behave differently
> > depending on the Windows version.
>
> Once I was told that wine should behave only as newer systems to avoid
2012/4/8 Dmitry Timoshkov :
> Daniel Jelinski wrote:
>
>> Skipping tests on WinNT - older versions of comctl send a different
>> set of events.
>
> Then you need to figure out what is different, and make the tests pass
> there as well (there is 'optional' flag for that), otherwise you risk
> break
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 13:38, Erich E. Hoover wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Marvin wrote:
>> ...
>> === WXPPROSP3 (32 bit sock) ===
>> sock.c:509: Test failed: oob_server (1ac): unexpectedly at the OOB mark: 0
>> sock.c:519: Test failed: oob_server (1ac): unexpectedly at the OOB mark:
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 19:54, Marvin wrote:
> Hi,
> ...
> http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=17727
> ...
> Your paranoid android.
>
>
> === WXPPROSP3 (32 bit sock) ===
> sock.c:509: Test failed: oob_server (1ac): unexpectedly at the OOB mark: 0
> sock.c:519: Test failed: oob_server (1ac):
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Marvin wrote:
> ...
> === WXPPROSP3 (32 bit sock) ===
> sock.c:509: Test failed: oob_server (1ac): unexpectedly at the OOB mark: 0
> sock.c:519: Test failed: oob_server (1ac): unexpectedly at the OOB mark: 0
Is this an expected failure? Also, if you're unfamiliar
Daniel Jelinski wrote:
> Skipping tests on WinNT - older versions of comctl send a different
> set of events.
Then you need to figure out what is different, and make the tests pass
there as well (there is 'optional' flag for that), otherwise you risk
breaking applications written for NT.
> +
