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