[PATCH 2/3] user32: Added more dialog owner tests.

[Jacek Caban]

Hi Dmitry,

On 3/1/16 4:31 AM, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> Hi Jacek,
>
> Jacek Caban <jacek at codeweavers.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Please don't create fake embedded blocks.
>>>>>> I need this declaration here, otherwise I wouldn't be able to use
>>>>>> handles for testing lparam value.
>>>>> wparam/lparam could be tested directly in the window procedure.
>>>> It would require some global variables and new window procedure. It's
>>>> cleaner to do it using existing tools IMO.
>>> Writing the tests for user32 requires a bit of efforts, yes.
>> I'd prefer to respond to comments that intend to improve the patch
>> instead of comments that intend to increase efforts.
> I already described the ways how to improve the patch. Improving a patch
> and writing good tests usually increases the efforts, not avoids them.

Yes, and I addressed all of your comments on wine-devel.

- SetParent needs to be used. If we used CreateWindowEx without WS_CHILD 
(which the test needs), you'd have an owned window, not child window. Do 
you need more explanation?
- As I explained you, I already added GetParent()/GetWindow() tests and 
fixes for this case to Wine and those are unrelated to the problem that 
this series fixes. I even showed that to you before you asked me to add 
them.
- My tests do test that messages are sent to child (there is parent flag 
in message sequence which is used for that). That's what you wanted to 
be tested, but it's there in the patch already.

Did I miss anything?

>>> But since
>>> you are new to this area I think it's justified to ask for more tests
>>> to show that you well understand the code and can proof that the patch
>>> is 100% correct.
>> Given quality of your comments so far (and I mean technical ones, not
>> just this one) I think it's justified to ask you to go back and try to
>> understand my patch before questioning my abilities.
> I'm not qustioning your abilities, just pointing out to an obvious fact.
> Since I'm the person who spent a lot of time working on user32 stuff and
> who has written many of the exisitng user32 tests I think that asking
> for a more convincing test shouldn't lead to so a much exagerrated
> reaction.

See above. After giving a few comments that were clearly wrong, all you 
had to say is that I should put more efforts with no constructive 
comment. If you have valid technical comments, I'd like to hear them.

Jacek