propsys: mention that the functions are stubs

[James Mckenzie]

Hans Leidekker <hans at codeweavers.com> wrote:
>
>On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 10:25 +0200, Francois Gouget wrote:
>
>> Just to confirm what André said, if the FIXME does not contain the word 
>> 'stub', then apistats has no way to know it's a (pseudo-)stub.
>
>Wouldn't it be sufficient for our purposes to just count every first
>fixme in a WINAPI function as a stub? As it is now there's a large
>percentage of fixmes that don't include the 'stub' keyword.
>
I tend to disagree.  Stubs should be identified, if possible, for each call.  Some calls will not activate a specific sequence of FIXMEs and in some cases, users have become confused as they don't have the technical knowledge to determine why their program is failing.
>
>> I would further argue that even a human reading the log would have no
>> way to know as quite a few implemented functions still dump their parameters.
>> So even for humans it's better to add 'stub' to the FIXME message.
>
>I'd say we need turn those into traces and add fixmes for the
>unimplemented parts, if needed.
>
This actually might be better, but don't TRACES only appear if you are running in debug mode?  We do want to inform our user base that a failure happened due to partially implemented code rather than give them the impression that we don't care or only implement code to make certain programs work (hacky code...)

Note:  This is only a statement of opinion, not a request for direction within the project.  If a fixme had 'stub' that means that we have implemented code to 'fake' windows functionality, whereas a real fixme means there is a problem with the code and it needs to be corrected.

James McKenzie