On 19.03.2015 16:07, Bernhard Übelacker wrote:
Hello Nikolay, thanks for your review.
Am 19.03.2015 um 13:34 schrieb Nikolay Sivov:
In this case it's better to return earlier, no need to step into try..expect block if you know you won't call anything.
So would it be safe to move the assignments out of the try..except block (please see attached patch)?
- if (dwInfoLevel == SERVICE_CONFIG_DESCRIPTION &&
info.u.descr->lpDescription == NULL)
SC_RPC_CONFIG_INFOW info;
err = ERROR_SUCCESS;return TRUE;- }
Yes, something like that, expect you don't need to set 'err' at all in this case. But now that I'm thinking more about it, server side should probably be fixed.
Or should we just do the call to the RPC server and decide there?
That's a good question. There's two ways to test it - connect to a server directly from test program and see what happens on NULL description (to make it work in wine you'll need to use W-call to a server as we do A->W conversion at client), indirectly - if you call ChangeServiceConfig2() with invalid handle and NULL description for info level 1.
In latter case I expect it to fail on invalid handle, and because handle validation is supposed to be done on server side only you will get your answer.
Another thing to test is to try and set description to NULL and then query it back with QueryServiceConfig2W() - it's possible that it's actually allowed to set it to NULL and 0 error value indicates just that.
Kind regards, Bernhard