"Vijay Kiran Kamuju" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - return TRUE;
> + /*return TRUE;*/
If you are not sure that the return should be removed, it's a sign that you
need a test case, just commenting it out without any explanation is not a
solution.
Same comment to all other similar cases.
Should I add comments or Do I have to add test cases?
That's up to you, but having any code simply commented out without
a single word of an explanation is confusing and misleading. I'd say
that having a commented out 'return' with any sort of an explanation
is bad IMO.
test cases are bit difficult as they are all UI based, and dont have
exact testcases.
As I rearranged the codes and removed the returns as the necessary
messages are not being sent (in order as observed on windows using
both old and latest versions of ControlSpy)
If you think I should add comments, I would be glad to modify.
Tests are a bit difficult :( (if you can help, I will try)
Of course the tests are preferable, but if it's a pure UI thing it's
pretty hard to test, yes. Message sequences can be tested, but that's
a bit trickier since comctl32 doesn't have a message sequnce test
infrastructure.
Should I send a new version of the patch, with the changes?
I don't think that the patch will be magically fixed on its own.
--
Dmitry.
