From: "Rémi Bernon" <rbernon@codeweavers.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/11] include: Add windows.storage.idl.
Message-Id: <5b440377-2f3d-fd7b-5454-2d9df28f96f7@codeweavers.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2022 19:15:56 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20220119132819.18340-5-besentv@gmail.com>
References: <20220119132819.18340-1-besentv@gmail.com> <20220119132819.18340-5-besentv@gmail.com>

Hi Bernhard,

On 1/19/22 14:28, Bernhard Kölbl wrote:
> +namespace Windows
> +{
> +    namespace Storage
> +    {
> +        [
> +            contract(Windows.Foundation.FoundationContract, 1.0),
> +            uuid(fa3f6186-4214-428c-a64c-14c9ac7315ea)
> +        ]
> +        interface IStorageFile : IInspectable
> +        {
> +            /* Fixme: Methods and requires missing. Stub! */
> +        }

Same as before, I think you can get away and a full declaration for this 
interface without having to declare too many things (although a bit more 
than with the previous patches).

I think this class also has some "overload" attributes, which may be 
good to have widl able to parse, even though they could just do nothing 
for now.

> +
> +        [
> +            contract(Windows.Foundation.UniversalApiContract, 1.0),
> +            /* Fixme: Static Interface not defined yet:
> +            static(Windows.Storage.IStorageFileStatics, Windows.Foundation.UniversalApiContract, 1.0) */
> +        ]
> +        runtimeclass StorageFile
> +        {
> +            [default] interface Windows.Storage.IStorageFile;
> +            /* Fixme: Intefaces missing. Stub! */
> +        }
> +    }
> +}

Here too, a full declaration would be better imho, even if it's just a 
matter of adding the interfaces (looks like it doesn't even need a 
forward declaration for non-default class interfaces), especially for 
non-versioned interfaces (those without the contract attribute), which 
may be required by some requires statements elsewhere.

Cheers,
-- 
Rémi Bernon <rbernon@codeweavers.com>