Re: [PATCH] shell32: handle bad menu handle (Coverity)
On 1/9/2010 16:59, Marcus Meissner wrote:
Hi,
handle "invalid menu" return -1. Now with test.
Ciao, Marcus --- dlls/shell32/shlmenu.c | 5 +++-- dlls/shell32/tests/shlfileop.c | 13 +++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
{ diff --git a/dlls/shell32/tests/shlfileop.c b/dlls/shell32/tests/shlfileop.c index 0a5cdca..4d74b93 100644 --- a/dlls/shell32/tests/shlfileop.c +++ b/dlls/shell32/tests/shlfileop.c
Wrong file to place test in I think.
@@ -2224,6 +2224,17 @@ static void test_unicode(void) ok(!file_existsW(UNICODE_PATH), "The directory should have been removed\n"); }
+extern HRESULT WINAPI Shell_MergeMenus (HMENU hmDst, HMENU hmSrc, UINT uInsert, UINT uIDAdjust, UINT uIDAdjustMax, ULONG uFlags); +
This should got to shlobj.h.
+static void +test_shlmenu(void) { + HRESULT hres; + hres = Shell_MergeMenus (0, 0, 0x42, 0x4242, 0x424242, 0); + ok (hres == 0x4242, "expected 0x4242 but got %x\n", hres); + hres = Shell_MergeMenus ((HMENU)42, 0, 0x42, 0x4242, 0x424242, 0); + ok (hres == 0x4242, "expected 0x4242 but got %x\n", hres); +} +
Use a valid empty menu handle here as first parameter. Also I'd like to use more sane const values.
START_TEST(shlfileop) { InitFunctionPointers(); @@ -2263,4 +2274,6 @@ START_TEST(shlfileop) clean_after_shfo_tests();
test_unicode(); + + test_shlmenu(); }
Function is available starting XP SP2 per msdn, so dynamic load should be used.
On Sat, Jan 09, 2010 at 07:18:18PM +0300, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
On 1/9/2010 16:59, Marcus Meissner wrote:
Hi,
handle "invalid menu" return -1. Now with test.
Ciao, Marcus --- dlls/shell32/shlmenu.c | 5 +++-- dlls/shell32/tests/shlfileop.c | 13 +++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
{ diff --git a/dlls/shell32/tests/shlfileop.c b/dlls/shell32/tests/shlfileop.c index 0a5cdca..4d74b93 100644 --- a/dlls/shell32/tests/shlfileop.c +++ b/dlls/shell32/tests/shlfileop.c Wrong file to place test in I think. @@ -2224,6 +2224,17 @@ static void test_unicode(void) ok(!file_existsW(UNICODE_PATH), "The directory should have been removed\n"); }
+extern HRESULT WINAPI Shell_MergeMenus (HMENU hmDst, HMENU hmSrc, UINT uInsert, UINT uIDAdjust, UINT uIDAdjustMax, ULONG uFlags); + This should got to shlobj.h. +static void +test_shlmenu(void) { + HRESULT hres; + hres = Shell_MergeMenus (0, 0, 0x42, 0x4242, 0x424242, 0); + ok (hres == 0x4242, "expected 0x4242 but got %x\n", hres); + hres = Shell_MergeMenus ((HMENU)42, 0, 0x42, 0x4242, 0x424242, 0); + ok (hres == 0x4242, "expected 0x4242 but got %x\n", hres); +} + Use a valid empty menu handle here as first parameter. Also I'd like to use more sane const values.
Hm. What are valid empty menu handles? 0xffff ? Or create one? and more sane?
START_TEST(shlfileop) { InitFunctionPointers(); @@ -2263,4 +2274,6 @@ START_TEST(shlfileop) clean_after_shfo_tests();
test_unicode(); + + test_shlmenu(); } Function is available starting XP SP2 per msdn, so dynamic load should be used.
Testbot had no complaints for any version it tests, see https://winetestbot.geldorp.nl/JobDetails.pl?Key=279, but i can change it. Ciao, Marcus
On 1/9/2010 19:37, Marcus Meissner wrote:
+static void +test_shlmenu(void) { + HRESULT hres; + hres = Shell_MergeMenus (0, 0, 0x42, 0x4242, 0x424242, 0); + ok (hres == 0x4242, "expected 0x4242 but got %x\n", hres); + hres = Shell_MergeMenus ((HMENU)42, 0, 0x42, 0x4242, 0x424242, 0); + ok (hres == 0x4242, "expected 0x4242 but got %x\n", hres); +} +
Use a valid empty menu handle here as first parameter. Also I'd like to use more sane const values.
Hm. What are valid empty menu handles? 0xffff ? Or create one? and more sane?
I mean CreateMenu() - it creates valid handle to empty menu, you'll test for item count in call you are testing. About const values I mean something like 1 will be enough here.
START_TEST(shlfileop) { InitFunctionPointers(); @@ -2263,4 +2274,6 @@ START_TEST(shlfileop) clean_after_shfo_tests();
test_unicode(); + + test_shlmenu(); }
Function is available starting XP SP2 per msdn, so dynamic load should be used.
Testbot had no complaints for any version it tests, see https://winetestbot.geldorp.nl/JobDetails.pl?Key=279, but i can change it.
Ok, still it doesn't have 9x VMs, it's better to try first. We could ask Paul maybe.
Ciao, Marcus
On 01/09/2010 11:50 PM, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
On 1/9/2010 19:37, Marcus Meissner wrote:
+static void +test_shlmenu(void) { + HRESULT hres; + hres = Shell_MergeMenus (0, 0, 0x42, 0x4242, 0x424242, 0); + ok (hres == 0x4242, "expected 0x4242 but got %x\n", hres); + hres = Shell_MergeMenus ((HMENU)42, 0, 0x42, 0x4242, 0x424242, 0); + ok (hres == 0x4242, "expected 0x4242 but got %x\n", hres); +} + Use a valid empty menu handle here as first parameter. Also I'd like to use more sane const values. Hm. What are valid empty menu handles? 0xffff ? Or create one? and more sane? I mean CreateMenu() - it creates valid handle to empty menu, you'll test for item count in call you are testing. About const values I mean something like 1 will be enough here.
START_TEST(shlfileop) { InitFunctionPointers(); @@ -2263,4 +2274,6 @@ START_TEST(shlfileop) clean_after_shfo_tests();
test_unicode(); + + test_shlmenu(); } Function is available starting XP SP2 per msdn, so dynamic load should be used.
Are you sure? It reads to me as being available up to XP-SP2/W2K3 but maybe removed or changed in newer versions. Anyway, we shouldn't ever believe MSDN as even their remark about needed shell32 version 6 or higher is not correct (see below) ;)
Testbot had no complaints for any version it tests, see https://winetestbot.geldorp.nl/JobDetails.pl?Key=279, but i can change it. Ok, still it doesn't have 9x VMs, it's better to try first. We could ask Paul maybe.
Succeeds on Win95. -- Cheers, Paul.
On 1/10/2010 13:35, Paul Vriens wrote:
Are you sure? It reads to me as being available up to XP-SP2/W2K3 but maybe removed or changed in newer versions. Anyway, we shouldn't ever believe MSDN as even their remark about needed shell32 version 6 or higher is not correct (see below) ;)
I misread it maybe: --- This function is available through Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) and Windows Server 2003. ---
Testbot had no complaints for any version it tests, see https://winetestbot.geldorp.nl/JobDetails.pl?Key=279, but i can change it. Ok, still it doesn't have 9x VMs, it's better to try first. We could ask Paul maybe.
Succeeds on Win95.
Ok.
participants (3)
-
Marcus Meissner -
Nikolay Sivov -
Paul Vriens