Re: [PATCH 2/2] devenum: Implement IMoniker::IsEqual().

[Jactry Zeng]

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for review! I sent another try.

2017-03-27 21:49 GMT+08:00 Andrew Eikum :
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 04:31:55PM +0800, Jactry Zeng wrote:
> > - res = ICreateDevEnum_CreateClassEnumerator(create_devenum,
>
> &CLSID_LegacyAmFilterCategory, &enum_moniker0, 0);
> > - ok(SUCCEEDED(res), "Cannot create enum moniker (res = %x)\n", res);
> > - res = ICreateDevEnum_CreateClassEnumerator(create_devenum,
>
> &CLSID_LegacyAmFilterCategory, &enum_moniker1, 0);
> > - ok(SUCCEEDED(res), "Cannot create enum moniker (res = %x)\n", res);
> > - if (!res)
> > - {
> > -
> >    if (!IEnumMoniker_Next(enum_moniker0, 1, &moniker0, NULL) &&
>
> !IEnumMoniker_Next(enum_moniker1, 1, &moniker1, NULL))
> > -
> >    {
> > -
> >        res = IMoniker_IsEqual(moniker0, moniker1);
> > -
> >        ok(!res, "IMoniker_IsEqual should failed (res = %x)\n",
>
> res);
> > -
> > -
> >        res = IMoniker_IsEqual(moniker1, moniker0);
> > -
> >        ok(!res, "IMoniker_IsEqual should failed (res = %x)\n",
>
> res);
> > -
> > -
> >        IMoniker_Release(moniker0);
> > -
> >        IMoniker_Release(moniker1);
> > -
> >    }
>
> These patches look fine to me except the ok() message is wrong on these
> two.
>
> Also, I think it's easier to read code that explicitly compares against
> S_OK or
> uses SUCCEEDED() instead of using !.
>
> Andrew