Esme Povirk (@madewokherd) commented about dlls/uiautomationcore/tests/uiautomation.c:
+ { + BSTR tree_struct; + int offset; + + hr = SafeArrayGetElement(tree_structs, &i, &tree_struct); + ok_(file, line)(hr == S_OK, "Unexpected hr %#lx\n", hr); + ok_(file, line)(!wcscmp(tree_struct, exp_tree_struct[i]), "Unexpected tree structure %s\n", debugstr_w(tree_struct)); + SysFreeString(tree_struct); + + hr = SafeArrayGetElement(offsets, &i, &offset); + ok_(file, line)(hr == S_OK, "Unexpected hr %#lx\n", hr); + ok_(file, line)(exp_offset[i] == offset, "Unexpected offset %d\n", offset); + } +} + +static const struct prov_method_sequence find_seq1[] = { I'm starting to think that maybe you don't need to test a method call sequence for everything.
I suspect you could also get away with testing fewer things generally, if the same things are tested elsewhere or the details do not impact the function of the implementation. -- https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/1249#note_13526