Re: [PATCH] vbscript: Implemented IsNumeric

[Jacek Caban]

On 04/23/14 02:20, Shuai Meng wrote:
> --- a/dlls/vbscript/global.c
> +++ b/dlls/vbscript/global.c
> @@ -557,8 +557,41 @@ static HRESULT Global_IsNull(vbdisp_t *This, VARIANT *arg, unsigned args_cnt, VA
>
> static HRESULT Global_IsNumeric(vbdisp_t *This, VARIANT *arg, unsigned args_cnt, VARIANT *res)
>  {
> -    FIXME("\n");
> -    return E_NOTIMPL;
> +    TRACE("(%s)\n", debugstr_variant(arg));
> +
> +    assert(args_cnt == 1);
> +
> +    if(res) {
> +        V_VT(res) = VT_BOOL;

You can't assume that res is non-NULL.
> +        switch(V_VT(arg)) {
> +            case VT_UI1:
> +            case VT_I2:
> +            case VT_I4:
> +            case VT_I8:
> +            case VT_R4:
> +            case VT_R8:
> +            case VT_BOOL:
> +            case VT_EMPTY:
> +            case VT_CY:
> +                V_BOOL(res) = VARIANT_TRUE;
> +                break;
> +            case VT_BSTR: {
> +                HRESULT hRet;
> +                double d;
> +
> +                hRet = VarR8FromStr(V_BSTR(arg), LOCALE_USER_DEFAULT, 0, &d);
> +                if(SUCCEEDED(hRet))
> +                    V_BOOL(res) = VARIANT_TRUE;
> +                else
> +                    V_BOOL(res) = VARIANT_FALSE;
> +                break;
> +            }
> +            default:
> +                V_BOOL(res) = VARIANT_FALSE;
> +                break;

That's a risky assumption. There are tons of other VT_* types possible
and at least VT_UI2, VT_UI4 and alike should most likely return true.
It's much safer to add explicit list of *tested* cases to return false
and FIXME(); return E_NOTIMPL for other cases.
> +        }
> +    }
> +    return S_OK;
>  }
>
> static HRESULT Global_IsArray(vbdisp_t *This, VARIANT *arg, unsigned args_cnt, VARIANT *res)
> diff --git a/dlls/vbscript/tests/api.vbs b/dlls/vbscript/tests/api.vbs
> index beee4d4..cf63fb9 100644
> --- a/dlls/vbscript/tests/api.vbs
> +++ b/dlls/vbscript/tests/api.vbs
> @@ -170,6 +170,25 @@ Call ok(not isNull(4), "isNull(4) is true?")
>  Call ok(not isNull("x"), "isNull(""x"") is true?")
>  Call ok(isNull(Null), "isNull(Null) is not true?")
>
> +Call ok(isNumeric(empty), "isNumeric(empty) is not true?")
> +Call ok(not isNumeric(Null), "isNumeric(Null) is not true?")
> +Call ok(isNumeric(32767), "isNumeric(32767) is true?")
> +Call ok(isNumeric(32768), "isNumeric(32768) is true?")
> +Call ok(isNumeric(CSng(3242.4)), "isNumeric(CSng(3242.4)) is true?")
> +Call ok(isNumeric(32768.4), "isNumeric(32768.4) is true?")
> +Call ok(isNumeric(CCur(32768.4)), "isNumeric(CCur(32768.4)) is true?")
> +Call ok(not isNumeric(CDate(32)), "isNumeric(CDate(32)) is true?")
> +Call ok(isNumeric("44"), "isNumeric(""44"") is true?")
> +Call ok(not isNumeric("rwrf"), "isNumeric(""rwrf"") is not true?")
> +Call ok(not isNumeric(Nothing), "isNumeric(Nothing) is not true?")
> +Call ok(not isNumeric(New EmptyClass), "isNumeric(New EmptyClass) is not true?")
> +Call ok(isNumeric(true), "isNumeric(true) is true?")
> +Call ok(isNumeric(CByte(32)), "isNumeric(CByte(32)) is true?")
> +Dim arr(2)
> +arr(0) = 2
> +arr(1) = 3
> +Call ok(not isNumeric(arr), "isNumeric(arr) is not true?")
> +
>  Call ok(getVT(err) = "VT_DISPATCH", "getVT(err) = " & getVT(err))

Your tests depend on your previous patches that were not committed and I
already commented them. Please concentrate on getting them committed first.


Jacek

[PATCH] vbscript: Implemented IsNumeric

[Jacek Caban]

On 04/23/14 17:16, Jacek Caban wrote:
> On 04/23/14 02:20, Shuai Meng wrote:
> > --- a/dlls/vbscript/global.c
> > +++ b/dlls/vbscript/global.c
> > @@ -557,8 +557,41 @@ static HRESULT Global_IsNull(vbdisp_t *This, VARIANT *arg, unsigned args_cnt, VA
> >
> > static HRESULT Global_IsNumeric(vbdisp_t *This, VARIANT *arg, unsigned args_cnt, VARIANT *res)
> >  {
> > -    FIXME("\n");
> > -    return E_NOTIMPL;
> > +    TRACE("(%s)\n", debugstr_variant(arg));
> > +
> > +    assert(args_cnt == 1);
> > +
> > +    if(res) {
> > +        V_VT(res) = VT_BOOL;
>
> You can't assume that res is non-NULL.

Ignore this comment, I misread the code.

Cheers,
Jacek