On 1/19/11 9:31 PM, Erich Hoover wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Jacek Caban<ja...@codeweavers.com> wrote:
On 1/18/11 7:31 PM, Erich Hoover wrote:
I've attached a test where I disabled the client/container, and you
can see that it then gets passed through (QueryStatusWB will return
success instead of passing through the client target and returning
failure):
https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=8408
Hmm, it means that another run of tests (at least required subset of
existing test_WebBrowser) with client's IOleCommandTarget disabled would
be interesting. Do you feel like writing it? Otherwise we'd need at least
a FIXME in this case.
I've been working on putting such a test together, I actually just
finished it up when I got your message. It's attached to this email,
and I would appreciate it if you would take a look - it ends up being
rather non-trivial since native caches the IOleCommandTarget on
creation of the container.
Corresponding test results:
https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=8449
Thanks. I have a few comments:
+static int OleContainer_use_custom_target = TRUE;
Please name it without mixing naming convention, something like
use_container_olecmd would do.
+ case IDM_STOP:
+ prgCmds[0].cmdf = 0;
+ return S_OK;
CHECK_EXPECT(QueryStatus_STOP) would be nice here.
+ ok(status& success_flag, "OLECMDID_STOP not enabled/supported: %08x\n",
status);
You could test the exact value here: ok(status == ...)
+ ok(!(status& success_flag), "IDM_STOP enabled/supported: %08x\n", status);
And here.
+
+static void test_CommandTargetPassthru(int use_custom_target)
+{
test_CommandTargetPassthru(TRUE) could go to existing test_WebBrowser.
+
+ if (!target)
+ return E_FAIL;
A test for this case would be nice. Also with this patch, testing ExecEB
shouldn't be too hard, let's test it as well.
Jacek
