Hi, I will wait on sending tests on this one. Until the first one gets in (http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2006-September/030659.html) Then I will resend with tests. Or may be I will write tests and send them seperately, it really depends on mood tommorrow afternoon.
bye, VJ On 10/11/06, Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/10/06, Huw Davies <huw at codeweavers.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 04:45:40PM -0400, Vijay Kiran Kamuju wrote: > > > Add IRunnableObject stub implementation, > > > > It's not at all clear to me what this interface should do in this > > context. Could you at least add a test that shows that the domdoc > > object should expose IRunnableObject? > > Check the bug# 6341 [http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6341 ] > previously I sent a patch > http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2006-September/030659.html > No response, so I thought its noway getting into the main tree, so no tests. > Well I sent this one to the list so that it does not get lost. Vijay, tests are exactly what you need to get things into the tree! And adding the test Huw suggests is very easy, go ahead and do that, and repost your patch with the test added (after verifying that the test passes on real windows). Thanks for working on some of these msxml problems! - Dan
