Hello
W dniu 16.08.2010 10:00, Mariusz Pluciński pisze:
---
dlls/gameux/gameexplorer.c | 7 +++++--
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
This is patch I sent to wine-patches yesterday. It was marked as
"Pending". I know that what I sent is not proper solution. But as I
wrote in FIXME, it's in my opinion impossible to implement it properly,
cause from what I know Wine does not support parental control. So,
instead of doing real check, my function simply always grants access.
My question is: what should I do with it? It cannot be left stub, as
there's already bug caused by this (bug #23850). And probably every game
which uses Game Explorer will behave that same. Should I write test case
to demonstrate that native works that same in most cases?
>From 89f720c9883ed73472c6a8e4350d911672cd8c73 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Mariusz=20Pluci=C5=84ski?= <vsha...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 22:05:01 +0100
Subject: gameux: Add initial implementation of IGameExplorer2::CheckAccess method
To: wine-patches <wine-patc...@winehq.org>
Reply-To: wine-devel <wine-devel@winehq.org>
---
dlls/gameux/gameexplorer.c | 7 +++++--
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/dlls/gameux/gameexplorer.c b/dlls/gameux/gameexplorer.c
index b8f57a7..25360a8 100644
--- a/dlls/gameux/gameexplorer.c
+++ b/dlls/gameux/gameexplorer.c
@@ -206,8 +206,11 @@ static HRESULT WINAPI GameExplorer2Impl_CheckAccess(
BOOL *pHasAccess)
{
GameExplorerImpl *This = impl_from_IGameExplorer2(iface);
- FIXME("stub (%p, %s, %p)\n", This, debugstr_w(binaryGDFPath), pHasAccess);
- return E_NOTIMPL;
+ TRACE("(%p, %s, %p)\n", This, debugstr_w(binaryGDFPath), pHasAccess);
+ FIXME("not properly implemented due to lack of parental control support in Wine\n");
+ /* access is always granted, it should make all applications working */
+ *pHasAccess = TRUE;
+ return S_OK;
}
static HRESULT WINAPI GameExplorer2Impl_InstallGame(
--
1.7.2
