[PATCH 1/2] d3drm: Implement IDirect3DRM*::CreateObject (v2).

[Aaryaman Vasishta]

Keeping it simple by using the easiest way would be better I think. Besides
the callback functions all behave the same regardless of the object it was
called on, according to the tests.

Cheers,
Aaryaman

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Henri Verbeet <hverbeet at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 20 April 2016 at 16:00, Aaryaman Vasishta <jem456.vasishta at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Sorry for the late reply, I was sick for the last couple of days.
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Henri Verbeet <hverbeet at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 18 April 2016 at 19:00, Aaryaman Vasishta <jem456.vasishta at gmail.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >> > diff --git a/dlls/d3drm/tests/d3drm.c b/dlls/d3drm/tests/d3drm.c
> >> > index a8f9c40..2b0174d 100644
> >> > --- a/dlls/d3drm/tests/d3drm.c
> >> > +++ b/dlls/d3drm/tests/d3drm.c
> >> > @@ -1269,7 +1269,8 @@ static void test_destroy_callback(unsigned int
> >> > test_idx, REFCLSID clsid, REFIID
> >> >      context.test_idx = test_idx;
> >> >      context.obj = obj;
> >> >
> >> > -    hr = IDirect3DRMObject_AddDestroyCallback(obj, NULL, &context);
> >> > +    if ((hr = IDirect3DRMObject_AddDestroyCallback(obj, NULL,
> >> > &context)) != D3DRMERR_BADVALUE)
> >> > +        return;
> >> I don't think we want that. Doing this means we won't notice when the
> >> function starts returning the wrong value, and the following tests get
> >> effectively disabled too in that case.
> >>
> > I do agree, but what should we do when a new object is implemented? If
> it's
> > okay to extend CreateObject to include the new interface as well as
> > implement Add/Delete destroy callbacks in the same patch, then there's no
> > problem going with this. I had intended to keep the return statement in
> case
> > a new object was added into CreateObject, but the destroy callback
> functions
> > for that object weren't implemented.
> The easiest way would be to just send the patch that implements those
> first. The slightly more complicated way would be to add another todo
> flag.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/attachments/20160420/a671f4b7/attachment.html>