[PATCH 2/5] user32/tests: Stop relying on pre-existing windows.

[Rémi Bernon]

On 1/31/22 11:50, Marvin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> While running your changed tests, I think I found new failures.
> Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be
> wrong, but could you please double-check?
> 
> Full results can be found at:
> https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=106582
> 
> Your paranoid android.
> 
> 
> === w1064v1809 (32 bit report) ===
> 
> user32:
> win.c:9977: Test failed: WindowFromPoint returned 000301D4, expected 000202CE
> win.c:9984: Test failed: WindowFromPoint returned 000301D4, expected 000302B6
> win.c:10068: Test failed: WindowFromPoint returned 000301D4, expected 000C0074
> win.c:10076: Test failed: WindowFromPoint returned 000301D4, expected 000302B6
> win.c:10005: Test failed: transparent window didn't get WM_NCHITTEST message
> win.c:10006: Test failed: button under static window didn't get WM_LBUTTONUP
> 
> === w10pro64_ja (64 bit report) ===
> 
> user32:
> win.c:10578: Test failed: pos = 00c800c8
> win.c:10582: Test failed: pos = 00c800c8
> win.c:10586: Test failed: pos = 00c800c8
> 
> === w10pro64_zh_CN (64 bit report) ===
> 
> user32:
> win.c:10578: Test failed: pos = 00c800c8
> win.c:10582: Test failed: pos = 00c800c8
> win.c:10586: Test failed: pos = 00c800c8
> 
> === debian11 (32 bit report) ===
> 
> user32:
> win.c:10772: Test failed: Expected foreground window 00FF00C8, got 008400B4
> win.c:10774: Test failed: GetActiveWindow() = 00000000
> win.c:10774: Test failed: GetFocus() = 00000000
> win.c:10775: Test failed: Received WM_ACTIVATEAPP(1), did not expect it.
> win.c:10776: Test failed: Received WM_ACTIVATEAPP(0), did not expect it.
> win.c:10784: Test failed: Expected foreground window 00FF00C8, got 00000000
> win.c:10786: Test failed: GetActiveWindow() = 00000000
> win.c:10786: Test failed: GetFocus() = 00000000
> win.c:10794: Test failed: Received WM_ACTIVATEAPP(1), did not expect it.

I think the patches help with some other failures such as pre-existing 
windows (like the firewall window problem after ntoskrnl.exe runs), but 
they apparently also add some flakiness. I'll resend without this one 
for now.
-- 
Rémi Bernon <rbernon at codeweavers.com>