Re: [PATCH 0/4] MR233: win32u: Partially move raw input APIs.

[Zebediah Figura]

On 6/13/22 03:27, Rémi Bernon (@rbernon) wrote:
> Rémi Bernon (@rbernon) commented about dlls/user32/tests/input.c:
> > -
> >            ok(count == ~0u, "GetRawInputData returned %d\n", count);
> > -
> >            ok(GetLastError() == ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER, "GetRawInputData returned %08lx\n", GetLastError());
> > -
> >        }
> > -
> >        else if (is_wow64)
> > -
> >        {
> > -
> >            count = GetRawInputData((HRAWINPUT)lparam, RID_INPUT, &ri, &size, sizeof(RAWINPUTHEADER64));
> > -
> >            todo_wine ok(count == sizeof(ri), "GetRawInputData returned %d\n", count);
> > -
> >            ok(ri.data.mouse.lLastX == 6, "Unexpected rawinput data: %ld\n", ri.data.mouse.lLastX);
> > -
> >            todo_wine ok(GetLastError() == 0xdeadbeef, "GetRawInputData returned %08lx\n", GetLastError());
> > -
> >        }
> > -
> >        else
> > -
> >        {
> > -
> >            count = GetRawInputData((HRAWINPUT)lparam, RID_INPUT, &ri, &size, sizeof(RAWINPUTHEADER64));
> > -
> >            ok(count == ~0u, "GetRawInputData returned %d\n", count);
> > -
> >            ok(GetLastError() == ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER, "GetRawInputData returned %08lx\n", GetLastError());
> > -
> >        }
>
> It feels a bit unbalanced to test invalid cases at the same time as a valid case depending on the arch. Could we have instead a test for the invalid sizes, and the another one with valid size?

I don't understand what you mean by this. Only one of these three tests 
makes sense, and on mutually exclusive architectures.

I could separate the if/elif/else into three separate if blocks, but I 
doubt that's what you mean.