[PATCH resend 1/8] comctl32/listbox: Make SetCount fail if LBS_NODATA is not set

[Alexandre Julliard]

Gabriel Ivăncescu <gabrielopcode at gmail.com> writes:

> On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 10:57 AM Nikolay Sivov <nsivov at codeweavers.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 11/5/18 5:40 PM, Gabriel Ivăncescu wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 2:38 PM Nikolay Sivov <nsivov at codeweavers.com> wrote:
>> >> What we need first is more tests covering this series and actual
>> >> implementation that you have written.
>> >>
>> > But there will be more patches that I split before I implement
>> > LBS_NODATA. And in fact the LBS_NODATA patch is pretty large by itself
>> > (mostly due to multi-column listboxes). Do you want me to send them
>> > all in one go? (it's about 9 patches or so, the last one is pretty
>> > large, couldn't split it up).
>> >
>> > These patches, for now, don't break anything though, only correct some
>> > behavior. LBS_NODATA will still work (but very bad performance).
>> > That's why I split them. Are you sure you don't want them as it is?
>> > (then I can send the next batch)
>>
>> No, I don't want them in one go, all I asked is to work to get tests
>> committed first, and then proceed with the rest.
>>
> Would it not be acceptable to have simple patches followed by tests
> that are relevant to those patches? Last time, I was told to do it
> this way so I wouldn't have to use todo_wine when it ends up being
> replaced afterwards.
>
> So I'm conflicted as to what's the actual practice of sending tests
> and how it is supposed to be done.

Both are acceptable, but if it's easy to add todo_wine, it's better to
send the test first. This way it's clear which test failures the patch
is fixing. In your case it seems that adding todos would be trivial, so
that's what you should do.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard at winehq.org