Re: LoadStringW [1/2]

[Dmitry Timoshkov]

"Christopher"  wrote:
> +static void test_LoadStringW(void)
> +{
> - HINSTANCE hInst = GetModuleHandle(NULL);
> - WCHAR copiedstring[128], returnedstring[128], *resourcepointer = NULL;
> - int strlen, strlen2;
> -
> - /* Check that the string which is returned by LoadStringW matches
> -
>   the string at the pointer returned by Load StringW when called with buflen = 0 */
> - strlen = LoadStringW(hInst, 2, (WCHAR *) &resourcepointer, 0); /* get pointer to resource. */
> - ok(strlen > 0, "LoadStringW failed to get pointer to resource 2, ret %d, err %d \n", strlen, GetLastError());
> -
> - strlen2 = LoadStringW(hInst, 2, returnedstring, sizeof(returnedstring) /sizeof(WCHAR));
> - ok(strlen == strlen2, "LoadStringW returned different values dependent on buflen. ret1 %d, ret2 %d \n",
> -
>    strlen, strlen2);
> - ok(strlen2 > 0, "LoadStringW failed to load resource 2, ret %d, err %d \n", strlen2, GetLastError());
> -
> - if(resourcepointer != NULL)
> - {
> -
>    memcpy(copiedstring, resourcepointer, strlen * sizeof(WCHAR));
> -
>    copiedstring[strlen] = '\0';
> - }
> - /* check that strings match */
> - ok(!memcmp(copiedstring, returnedstring, (strlen + 1)*sizeof(WCHAR)),
> -
>    "LoadStringW returned a string that does not match the string pointed to by the pointer it returned. \
> -
>     returnedstring = %ls, copiedstring = %ls", returnedstring, copiedstring);
>
> +}

It's not clear what this test is supposed to show. If the 1st call
to LoadStringW is supposed to set resourcepointer to not NULL, why
don't you test it? Then 'if(resourcepointer != NULL)' check and copying
to copiedstring are not needed.

Also, if the test depends on a later patch to not fail, the test should be
included in the patch.