After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 601616 - GtkTable, GtkBox tests from gtkvts fail with "Native Windows wider or taller than 65535 pixels are not supported"
GtkTable, GtkBox tests from gtkvts fail with "Native Windows wider or taller ...
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 698758
Product: gtk+
Classification: Platform
Component: Widget: Other
2.18.x
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: gtk-bugs
gtk-bugs
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2009-11-11 22:54 UTC by Stew Benedict
Modified: 2013-08-14 02:55 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---



Description Stew Benedict 2009-11-11 22:54:33 UTC
We (LSB) are seeing a number of failures of the gtkvts tests against 2.17.x and up. I've done some patch work on a number of the tests and have things down with 2.18.x to just these two, which are showing up fairly consistently across distributions. In short, the test(s) tried to create GtkBox and GtkTable widgets using large values for either padding or row spacing, and end up crashing with the message I mention in the summary on the console.

ref:
http://bugs.linuxbase.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2700#c11
http://bugs.linuxbase.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2700#c12

test source:
http://bzr.linux-foundation.org/loggerhead/lsb/devel/desktop-test/annotate/head%3A/lsb-gtkvts/src/tests/functions/Widgets/GtkBox.inp
http://bzr.linux-foundation.org/loggerhead/lsb/devel/desktop-test/annotate/head%3A/lsb-gtkvts/src/tests/functions/Widgets/GtkTable.inp

It would be good to get an opinion as to whether this is a valid issue or not. I don't really see anything in the spec that requires such large values to work, and they don't really seem practical. Perhaps when the tests were written there was some reason to have these in place to catch regressions of some sort.
Comment 1 Morten Welinder 2013-06-20 14:25:28 UTC
Probably a dupe of bug 698758.
Comment 2 Matthias Clasen 2013-08-14 02:55:27 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 698758 ***