[PATCH 3/7] comctl32/monthcal: Use a single calendar for hittesting tests, make point calculation at runtime

[Paul Vriens]

On 09/30/2009 12:10 PM, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
> Paul Vriens wrote:
>> On 09/29/2009 12:36 PM, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
>>> Changelog:
>>> - be sure we have a single view calendar for hittesting
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>> Hi Nikolay,
>>
>> This one introduces a test failure on several platforms:
>>
>> monthcal.c:1002: Test failed: Expected 10000, got 10002
>>
>> I fixed it on my NT4 box by checking the point more to the left (see
>> attached).
>>
>> I somehow doubt it's the correct fix though. Aren't these tests with
>> more-or-less fixed points error-prone (aka, locale/font/dpi dependent)?
>>
> Hi, Paul.
>
> I certainly noticed that. A problem for me is that it doesn't fail on
> mine XP. Could you please send me (offlist) a crossbuilt binary with
> this patch - I'm not able to built it myself at the moment.
>
> About fragility of these test - it was a reason why I use dynamic point
> calculation here, it was fixed before. So now it should be less dpi/font
> dependent I hope. It isn't affected by locale too much I think.
>

Doing a little bit of testing (doing a hittest on the full range) shows 
subtle differences between for example my NT4 and W2K3 box. The W2K3 
calendar shows "April, 2009" where NT4 shows "April 2009".

Looking at 
http://test.winehq.org/data/3fe20bdc7ea59b3e5711bed26d86c433109b21e7/xp_af-xpsp3/comctl32:monthcal.html
even seems to indicate that with this locale the year is shown before 
the month?

I'm wondering what a good test would be (that covers all cases) or 
whether most of these tests should be dropped?

A normal order should be for "April 2009":

- MCHT_TITLE
- MCHT_TITLEBTNPREV
- MCHT_TITLE
- MCHT_TITLEMONTH
- MCHT_TITLE
- MCHT_TITLEYEAR
- MCHT_TITLE
- MCHT_TITLEBTNNEXT
- MCHT_TITLE

(That box mentioned would have MCHT_TITLEMONTH and MCHT_TITLEYEAR the 
other way around).

Maybe testing the order (both variations) would be fine enough?

Any thoughts?

-- 
Cheers,

Paul.