On 15 October 2013 18:10, Nikolay Sivov bunglehead@gmail.com wrote:
diff --git a/dlls/d3d9/tests/device.c b/dlls/d3d9/tests/device.c index 02b4174..90d5c38 100644 --- a/dlls/d3d9/tests/device.c +++ b/dlls/d3d9/tests/device.c @@ -5404,6 +5404,10 @@ static void test_lockrect_invalid(void) ok(SUCCEEDED(hr), "Failed to lock surface with rect NULL, hr %#x.\n", hr); hr = IDirect3DSurface9_LockRect(surface, &locked_rect, NULL, 0); ok(hr == D3DERR_INVALIDCALL, "Got unexpected hr %#x.\n", hr);
- locked_rect.pBits = (BYTE *)0xdeadbeef;
- hr = IDirect3DSurface9_LockRect(surface, &locked_rect, NULL, 0);
- ok(!SUCCEEDED(hr) && locked_rect.pBits == NULL, "Failed to clear
pBits (%p)\n",
locked_rect.pBits); hr = IDirect3DSurface9_UnlockRect(surface); ok(SUCCEEDED(hr), "Failed to unlock surface, hr %#x.\n", hr);It looks like you could use existing LockRect() call that's already tested as failing. Also I think FAILED() is a preferred way to test HRESULT value for failure, but as existing code does - you could also test for exact failure code.
Yeah, I think it really just needs the intialization of pBits before the existing LockRect() call, and an extra ok() call after the existing one.