From: Zebediah Figura Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] user32/tests: Add tests for GetWindowPlacement() and SetWindowPlacement(). Message-Id: <0368bc4a-6631-6709-9c27-641f3879501f@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 10:01:28 -0600 In-Reply-To: <6090558c-4ddd-bca2-f36f-90ecba3a6959@gmail.com> References: <20190210190015.4039-1-z.figura12@gmail.com> <76b75682-97e4-4117-11ff-d68ba8fc0e29@gmail.com> <87mumz78c0.fsf@wine> <6090558c-4ddd-bca2-f36f-90ecba3a6959@gmail.com> On 2/14/19 4:25 AM, Gabriel Ivăncescu wrote: > On 2/14/19 6:17 AM, Zebediah Figura wrote: >> On 2/13/19 2:16 PM, Alexandre Julliard wrote: >>> Zebediah Figura writes: >>> >>>> On 2/10/19 1:39 PM, Marvin wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> While running your changed tests on Windows, 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=47392 >>>>> >>>>> Your paranoid android. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> === wvistau64 (32 bit report) === >>>>> >>>>> user32: >>>>> win.c:10796: Test failed: got minimized pos (0,713) >>>>> win.c:10808: Test failed: got minimized pos (0,713) >>>>> win.c:10820: Test failed: got minimized pos (0,713) >>>>> win.c:10833: Test failed: got minimized pos (0,713) >>>>> win.c:10846: Test failed: got minimized pos (0,713) >>>>> win.c:10859: Test failed: got minimized pos (0,713) >>>>> win.c:10872: Test failed: got minimized pos (0,713) >>>>> win.c:10906: Test failed: got minimized pos (100,100) >>>>> win.c:10928: Test failed: got minimized pos (100,100) >>>>> >>>> >>>> *snip* >>>> >>>> This fails because test_shell_window(), which is pretty pathological, >>>> kills explorer.exe, and that doesn't restart itself until the test >>>> program terminates. What can be done about this, if anything? >>> >>> The obvious fix is to run your test before the one that kills the shell >>> window. Though if the behavior depends on having a shell window, it may >>> be interesting to test both cases. >>> >> >> Thanks. I guess I wasn't sure if that was an acceptable solution. >> >> I guess the behaviour here makes sense—if there's no shell window, there >> won't be a taskbar, and so windows would have no way of being restored >> if they're minimized offscreen. But I'm also not sure it's something >> that there's any point replicating in Wine (either windows are offscreen >> anyway due to WM integration, or explorer.exe is necessary to run the >> virtual desktop), so I'll leave off testing this, unless you think it'd >> be better to do so. >> >> > > Hi Zeb, > > Just wondering, could this (missing) behavior have something to do with > https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15346 > > It's not immediately evident to me why it would, I guess? Does the program call SetShellWindow()?