No more winrash?
jakov at vmlinux.org
Tue Dec 7 07:48:17 CST 2004
Ferenc Wagner wrote:
>Jakob Eriksson <jakov at vmlinux.org> writes:
>>>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
Good, I kind of hoped you thought so too.
>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
I tried sending a patch for this, but it wasn't much loved and dropped.
>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
Well, line 183 in dlls/gdi/tests/metafile.c detects rather nicely whether
we are running in an interactive desktop or not.
I could copy that logic to winetest.exe
metafile.c : 183
ok(emr_processed, "EnumEnhMetaFile couldn't find EMR_EXTTEXTOUTA or
More information about the wine-devel