Dimitrie O. Paun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I did a _bit_ of the test, and things are not looking
good. I just did the {Create,Show,Destroy}Window tests for
overlapped and child windows, and I get quite a bit of failures.
Before we go around wine tweaking things to match the tests,
I'd
On September 29, 2003 04:57 am, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
I'm attaching a diff between your output and an output of
the test run under win2k (line numbers were stripped before
the diff).
Thanks, but there is still something fishy with the test.
I've changed the InSendMessage() test to something
man, 29.09.2003 kl. 16.33 skrev Dimitrie O. Paun:
On September 29, 2003 04:57 am, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
I'm attaching a diff between your output and an output of
the test run under win2k (line numbers were stripped before
the diff).
So it seems that InSendMessage() always returns
Well, I did a _bit_ of the test, and things are not looking
good. I just did the {Create,Show,Destroy}Window tests for
overlapped and child windows, and I get quite a bit of failures.
Before we go around wine tweaking things to match the tests,
I'd like to have the test run on a bunch of Windows
On September 27, 2003 04:52 pm, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
IMO the right place for that info is in a regression test that
actually checks the message order. It should be pretty trivial to
write a window procedure that takes an expected message list and
checks that each successive message it
Dimitrie O. Paun [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Good idea. How do we simulate the mouse, for these cases:
SendInput() does that. Moving a window with it might be a bit tricky
(you probably need to use a child window to avoid trouble with managed
mode).
ANd how do we differentiate between messages
