Nikolay Sivov wrote:
The very first one was better (when you fixed only division by zero). Now you're changing path earlier: --- + if(rows <= 0) rows = 1; --- There's no tests currently for that (<=0 isn't tested), could you add them (to test_setrows() I suppose)?
What's write in this test? Maybe something like this: RECT rc; int rows; memset(&rc, 0xCC, sizeof(rc)); SendMessageA(hToolbar, TB_SETROWS, MAKEWPARAM(0, TRUE), (LPARAM) &rc); rows = SendMessageA(hToolbar, TB_GETROWS, 0, 0); ok(rows == 1, "Unexpected number of rows %d (expected %d)\n", rows, 1); memset(&rc, 0xCC, sizeof(rc)); SendMessageA(hToolbar, TB_SETROWS, MAKEWPARAM(-1, TRUE), (LPARAM) &rc); rows = SendMessageA(hToolbar, TB_GETROWS, 0, 0); ok(rows == 1, "Unexpected number of rows %d (expected %d)\n", rows, 1);