[ros-diffs] [tkreuzer] 66444: [USER32_APITEST] Add some test for GetDCEx that highlight the ridiculous implementation of owned and class DCs.

[James Tabor]

Author: tkreuzer
Date: Tue Feb 24 23:15:08 2015
New Revision: 66444

[USER32_APITEST]
Add some test for GetDCEx that highlight the ridiculous implementation
of owned and class DCs.

Hello All!

What is ridiculous is the attitude of our smart A__ developers!

James

[James Tabor]

ReactOS is 11 out of 119, ~ 10%, this means it must be ridiculous?

preloader: Warning: failed to reserve range 00010000-00110000
preloader: Warning: failed to reserve range 00010000-00110000
GetDCEx.c:91: Test failed: GetDCEx should fail
GetDCEx.c:94: Test failed: GetDCEx should fail
GetDCEx.c:97: Test failed: GetDCEx should fail
GetDCEx.c:99: Test failed: GetDCEx should fail
GetDCEx.c:102: Test failed: GetDCEx should fail
GetDCEx.c:177: Test failed: Expected the same DC
GetDCEx.c:242: Test failed: Expected failure
GetDCEx.c:300: Test failed: Expected different DC
GetDCEx.c:324: Test failed: Expected different DC, got class DC
GetDCEx.c:325: Test failed: Expected different DC, got own DC
GetDCEx.c:331: Test failed: Expected different DC, got class DC
GetDCEx.c:344: Test failed: Expected different DC
GetDCEx: 119 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 12 failures), 0 skipped.

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 6:54 PM, James Tabor [e-mail]
wrote:
> Author: tkreuzer
> Date: Tue Feb 24 23:15:08 2015
> New Revision: 66444
>
> [USER32_APITEST]
> Add some test for GetDCEx that highlight the ridiculous implementation of owned and class DCs.
>
> Hello All!
>
> What is ridiculous is the attitude of our smart A__ developers!
>
> James

[Timo Kreuzer]

In fact, what I wanted to say, was the ridiculous implementation *on 
Windows* (wrt to the screwed logic)
reactos is obviously following Windows here already pretty closely ;-)

On the other hand our code has a huge DC leak, which is almost 
impossible to track down, because the code is a mess.

Btw, 59 tests are just testing obvious stuff like CreateWindow or 
ReleaseDC doesn't fail.
So it's more like ~20% that fails.

Am 25.02.2015 um 03:25 schrieb James Tabor:
> ReactOS is 11 out of 119, ~ 10%, this means it must be ridiculous?
>
> preloader: Warning: failed to reserve range 00010000-00110000
> preloader: Warning: failed to reserve range 00010000-00110000
> GetDCEx.c:91: Test failed: GetDCEx should fail
> GetDCEx.c:94: Test failed: GetDCEx should fail
> GetDCEx.c:97: Test failed: GetDCEx should fail
> GetDCEx.c:99: Test failed: GetDCEx should fail
> GetDCEx.c:102: Test failed: GetDCEx should fail
> GetDCEx.c:177: Test failed: Expected the same DC
> GetDCEx.c:242: Test failed: Expected failure
> GetDCEx.c:300: Test failed: Expected different DC
> GetDCEx.c:324: Test failed: Expected different DC, got class DC
> GetDCEx.c:325: Test failed: Expected different DC, got own DC
> GetDCEx.c:331: Test failed: Expected different DC, got class DC
> GetDCEx.c:344: Test failed: Expected different DC
> GetDCEx: 119 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 12 failures), 0 skipped.
>
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 6:54 PM, James Tabor 
> <[e-mail] mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
> Author: tkreuzer
> Date: Tue Feb 24 23:15:08 2015
> New Revision: 66444
>
> [USER32_APITEST]
> Add some test for GetDCEx that highlight the ridiculous implementation of owned and class DCs.
>
> Hello All!
>
> What is ridiculous is the attitude of our smart A__ developers!
>
> James
>
>
>
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[James Tabor]

Hi,
Hopefully the last commit for the GetDCEx test helped.
James

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 2:48 AM, Timo Kreuzer [e-mail] wrote:
> In fact, what I wanted to say, was the ridiculous implementation *on
> Windows* (wrt to the screwed logic)
> reactos is obviously following Windows here already pretty closely ;-)
>
> On the other hand our code has a huge DC leak, which is almost impossible
> to track down, because the code is a mess.
>
> Btw, 59 tests are just testing obvious stuff like CreateWindow or
> ReleaseDC doesn't fail.
> So it's more like ~20% that fails.
>
> Am 25.02.2015 um 03:25 schrieb James Tabor:
>
> ReactOS is 11 out of 119, ~ 10%, this means it must be ridiculous?
>
> preloader: Warning: failed to reserve range 00010000-00110000
> preloader: Warning: failed to reserve range 00010000-00110000
> GetDCEx.c:91: Test failed: GetDCEx should fail
> GetDCEx.c:94: Test failed: GetDCEx should fail
> GetDCEx.c:97: Test failed: GetDCEx should fail
> GetDCEx.c:99: Test failed: GetDCEx should fail
> GetDCEx.c:102: Test failed: GetDCEx should fail
> GetDCEx.c:177: Test failed: Expected the same DC
> GetDCEx.c:242: Test failed: Expected failure
> GetDCEx.c:300: Test failed: Expected different DC
> GetDCEx.c:324: Test failed: Expected different DC, got class DC
> GetDCEx.c:325: Test failed: Expected different DC, got own DC
> GetDCEx.c:331: Test failed: Expected different DC, got class DC
> GetDCEx.c:344: Test failed: Expected different DC
> GetDCEx: 119 tests executed (0 marked as todo, 12 failures), 0 skipped.
>
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 6:54 PM, James Tabor [e-mail]
> wrote:
> > Author: tkreuzer
> > Date: Tue Feb 24 23:15:08 2015
> > New Revision: 66444
> >
> > [USER32_APITEST]
> > Add some test for GetDCEx that highlight the ridiculous implementation of owned and class DCs.
> >
> > Hello All!
> >
> > What is ridiculous is the attitude of our smart A__ developers!
> >
> > James
>
> Ros-dev mailing [e-mail]://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev