On 11/30/10 3:49 PM, Paul Vriens wrote:
On 11/30/2010 03:42 PM, Jacek Caban wrote:
Hi Paul,
On 11/30/10 2:46 PM, Paul Vriens wrote:
Changing the lstrcmpW and using A-functions to create the window makes
the tests succeed on my win98 box (changed activex.c attached).
Thanks for catching it. How about this version:
http://source.winehq.org/patches/data/68936
I would prefer to forget about win9x when writing tests, so I've skipped
as much as possible on them.
I guess that's AJ's call? Taking this approach is fine with me but we
could then start considering whether we still want to test on Win9x.
Microsoft has abandoned those old versions already so maybe we are the
only solution for old programs (and we thus need tests?).
Or are you only talking about stuff like mshtml/shdocvw ....?
I was mostly talking about stuff I work on, but since you brought the
topic here is my opinion:
I can see that these tests may be useful sometimes, eg. if someone is
interested in old apps that don't run on new Windows. But the honest
true is that it's not what happens with our tests. All we usually do
with old Windows or old IEs is blindly (well, not always, you do better
than that) marking them as broken. The result is that our tests have
more complicated code and are less strict. Thus my personal strategy is
different: leave win9x (or old IEs for that matter) alone as long as
they don't cause troubles. As soon as there is a trouble with a test on
a platform that I don't care about, I just disable the whole file. This
way I don't waste my time on uninteresting platforms, the code stays
cleaner and tests remain stricter, giving win9x tests a chance to prove
itself. I've already sent quite a few patches applying this strategy to
different tests.
Jacek
