Measuring Wine's API completeness
Markus Amsler
markus.amsler at oribi.org
Fri Nov 11 18:44:36 CST 2005
Hi,
Michael Jung wrote:
>Something like 'IMPLEMENTATION STATUS', which would document the
>author's opinion on how complete the implementation of a given API is. We
>could introduce a classification scheme similar to:
>
>STUBBED: Well, stubbed.
>SKETCHY: Implemented just enough to make a specific application
> or a small set of applications happy.
>SUBSTANTIAL: Implemented a substantial part of the API (Perhaps as
> much as is documented on MSDN).
>COMPLETE: The author of this API considers the implementation complete.
>REVIEWED: The code was reviewed for completeness and correctness.
>
>
Steven Edwards wrote:
>We have a dynamic page like this for ReactOS though I don't like it
>because it only supports implemented and unimplemented tags in the
>function comment.
I like the states from Michael, and the short @-notation from ReactOS. The implementation status is just a flag, writting a whole section is IMO an overkill. Any agreements on this proposal:
@-notation, 5 states:
@unimplemented (=STUBBED)
@skechty
@substantial
@implemented (=COMPLETE)
@reviewed
2 possible usages:
- Header:
/******************************************************************************
* LsaFreeMemory [ADVAPI32.@] @implemented
*/
- on its own line:
/******************************************************************************
* LsaLookupNames [ADVAPI32.@]
*
* @substantial
*/
The parser would simply look for the keywords (@substantial, @..), false positives are pretty unlikley (not one in the wine source).
Markus
More information about the wine-devel
mailing list