Ferenc Wagner wrote:
Jakob Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
If it really breaks the tests then definitely yes.
I think it does provide much useful information which would
be largely lost if we resorted to manual testing. What's
Good, I kind of hoped you thought so too.
more, winetest is not really up to that, as it doesn't ask for a tag but relies on a command line option which people would tend to forget. What I propose: make winetest detect whether it's running on an interactive desktop or not, and include this info in the header just like bRunningUnderWine. Meanwhile add the tag dialog to winetest and separate or mark the different reports on the webpage for easier reference. That would bring us the best of both worlds.
Or possibly tweak the sensitive tests (how many are there?)
to make clear in the output that they were not run for this
I tried sending a patch for this, but it wasn't much loved and dropped.
reason... That would probably require a new field in the final report (ie. success-failure-todo-skipped or similar). This could also signal WINETEST_INTERACTIVE tests so that they aren't forgotten about...
That said, I don't know much of this desktop business, so
I'm not sure how to put the detection logic in. The rest
Well, line 183 in dlls/gdi/tests/metafile.c detects rather nicely whether we are running in an interactive desktop or not.
I could copy that logic to winetest.exe
metafile.c : 183
ok(emr_processed, "EnumEnhMetaFile couldn't find EMR_EXTTEXTOUTA or EMR_EXTTEXTOUTW record\n");
( http://test.winehq.org/data/200412021000/2000_JakobErikssonBW/gdi32:metafile.txt )
regards, Jakob Eriksson
