Re: [PATCH 2/3] user32: Added more dialog owner tests.

[Dmitry Timoshkov]

Jacek Caban  wrote:
> > > - parent = CreateWindowExA(0, "TestParentClass", "Test parent",
> > > -
> > >                         WS_OVERLAPPEDWINDOW | WS_VISIBLE,
> > > -
> > >                         100, 100, 200, 200, 0, 0, 0, NULL);
> > > - ok (parent != 0, "Failed to create parent window\n");
> > > -
> > > - child = CreateWindowExA(0, "TestWindowClass", "Test child",
> > > -
> > >                        WS_OVERLAPPEDWINDOW | WS_VISIBLE,
> > > -
> > >                        100, 100, 200, 200, 0, 0, 0, NULL);
> > > - ok (child != 0, "Failed to create child window\n");
> > > -
> > > - child2 = CreateWindowExA(0, "SimpleWindowClass", "Test child2",
> > > -
> > >                         WS_OVERLAPPEDWINDOW | WS_VISIBLE | WS_CHILD,
> > > -
> > >                         100, 100, 200, 200, child, 0, 0, NULL);
> > > - ok (child2 != 0, "Failed to create child window\n");
> > > -
> > > - SetParent(child, parent);
> > > - SetFocus(child);
> >
> > Is that really required to use SetParent() instead of specifying correct
> > parent in the CreateWindowEx call?
>
> Yes, SetParent and CreateWindowEx's parent are not the same thing. See
> for example d13a44e4aa12fa5ad3498c39934e88a7dcd30916 to understand the
> difference.

For child windows it shouldn't matter.
> > > - flush_sequence();
> > > - DialogBoxA( 0, "TEST_DIALOG", child2, TestModalDlgProc2 );
> > > - ok_sequence(WmModalDialogSeq_2, "ModalDialog2", TRUE);
> >
> > Is this test supposed to show that actual dialog owner is parent window?
> > If yes, then this theory is not tested at all.
>
> No, it's actually supposed to show that owner is not the parent. We know
> that owner is child in this case, but current code will use parent
> anyway, which is not right. My tests show that messages are sent to
> child, not parent.

Adding actual checks with GetParent()/GetWindow(GW_OWNER)/GetAncestor()
would be preferrable IMO instead of not obvious message sequences.
> > > - SetForegroundWindow(hdlg);
> > > -
> > > - {
> > > -
> > >    const struct message WmEndDialogSeq[] = {
> > > -
> > >        { WM_ENABLE, sent },
> > > -
> > >        { WM_WINDOWPOSCHANGING, sent|wparam, SWP_HIDEWINDOW|SWP_NOACTIVATE|SWP_NOSIZE|SWP_NOMOVE },
> > > -
> > >        { HCBT_ACTIVATE, hook|wparam, (WPARAM)hchild },
> > > -
> > >        { WM_NCACTIVATE, sent|wparam|lparam, WA_INACTIVE, (LPARAM)hchild },
> > > -
> > >        { WM_ACTIVATE, sent|wparam|lparam, WA_INACTIVE, (LPARAM)hchild },
> > > -
> > >        /* FIXME: Following two are optional because Wine sends WM_QUERYNEWPALETTE instead of WM_WINDOWPOSCHANGING */
> > > -
> > >        { WM_WINDOWPOSCHANGING, sent|wparam|optional, SWP_NOSIZE|SWP_NOMOVE },
> > > -
> > >        { WM_QUERYNEWPALETTE, sent|optional },
> > > -
> > >        { WM_NCACTIVATE, sent|wparam|lparam, WA_ACTIVE, (LPARAM)hdlg },
> > > -
> > >        { WM_GETTEXT, sent|optional|defwinproc },
> > > -
> > >        { WM_ACTIVATE, sent|wparam|lparam, WA_ACTIVE, (LPARAM)hdlg },
> > > -
> > >        { HCBT_SETFOCUS, hook|wparam, (WPARAM)hchild },
> > > -
> > >        { WM_KILLFOCUS, sent|wparam, (WPARAM)hchild },
> > > -
> > >        { WM_SETFOCUS, sent|defwinproc|wparam, (WPARAM)hdlg },
> > > -
> > >        { 0 }
> > > -
> > >    };
> > > -
> > > -
> > >    flush_sequence();
> > > -
> > >    EndDialog(hdlg, 0);
> > > -
> > >    ok_sequence(WmEndDialogSeq, "EndDialog", FALSE);
> > > - }
> >
> > Please don't create fake embedded blocks.
>
> I need this declaration here, otherwise I wouldn't be able to use
> handles for testing lparam value.

wparam/lparam could be tested directly in the window procedure.
> > Also it would be really nice to send the tests first so it would be more clear
> > when a todo_wine is removed with a subsequent patch in order to see whether
> > the patch is actually related to the previously sent tests.
>
> I'm not sure I agree.

Please don't get me wrong, but when sending tests after the fixes the result
can't be easily verified, and therefore this reduces the trust and value of
patches.