No more winrash?

[Ferenc Wagner]

Jakob Eriksson <jakov at vmlinux.org> writes:

> Do you agree, should we stop using winrash?
>
> "Dmitry Timoshkov" <dmitry at baikal.ru> wrote:
>
>> "Jakob Eriksson" <jakov at vmlinux.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, I tried now marking the service as interactive,
>>> but that didn't make any difference.
>>> 
>>> So, what follows, deprecate Winrash?
>>
>> If it really breaks the tests then definitely yes.

I think it does provide much useful information which would
be largely lost if we resorted to manual testing.  What's
more, winetest is not really up to that, as it doesn't ask
for a tag but relies on a command line option which people
would tend to forget.  What I propose: make winetest detect
whether it's running on an interactive desktop or not, and
include this info in the header just like bRunningUnderWine.
Meanwhile add the tag dialog to winetest and separate or
mark the different reports on the webpage for easier
reference.  That would bring us the best of both worlds.

Or possibly tweak the sensitive tests (how many are there?)
to make clear in the output that they were not run for this
reason...  That would probably require a new field in the
final report (ie. success-failure-todo-skipped or similar).
This could also signal WINETEST_INTERACTIVE tests so that
they aren't forgotten about...

That said, I don't know much of this desktop business, so
I'm not sure how to put the detection logic in.  The rest
should not be hard, I hope I'll find the time for them if we
decide to go this way.
-- 
Feri.