We already iterate over custom buttons and check every common button flag before this point, so it shouldn't be necessary to have another loop.
I'm open to suggestion, but how would you do that?
We could add three checks each time before taskdialog_init_button is called, or alternatively one check in taskdialog_init_button. Like giving it a pointer to default_button, and checking if the id equal the taskdialog default button. But I find my current solution to be cleaner to be honest, what's your suggestion?
@@ -583,7 +592,7 @@ HRESULT WINAPI TaskDialogIndirect(const TASKDIALOGCONFIG *taskconfig, int *butto> Free(template);
if (button) *button = ret;
- if (radio_button) *radio_button = taskconfig->nDefaultButton;
if (radio_button) *radio_button = FALSE;
if (verification_flag_checked) *verification_flag_checked = TRUE;
Same as with verification flag, we don't implement radio buttons currently so it's better to leave it as is to avoid possible regressions until we add support for them. Also you're supposed to return button id, not binary flags.
Yes, it should be 0 instead of FALSE. But the way it is, returning "taskconfig->nDefaultButton", that's obviously wrong. The tests show it has to be 0, and even if we implement it, the result when not setting radio buttons won't change, right?
+static TASKDIALOG_BUTTON* buttons_make(void) +{
- static const WCHAR str_format[] = {'%','0','2','d',0};
- static TASKDIALOG_BUTTON buttons[TEST_NUM_BUTTONS];
- static WCHAR titles[TEST_NUM_BUTTONS * 3]; /* Each button has two
digits as title, plus null-terminator */ + int i;
- for (i = 0; i < TEST_NUM_BUTTONS; i++)
- {
WCHAR *text = &titles[i * 3];wsprintfW(text, str_format, i);buttons[i].pszButtonText = text;buttons[i].nButtonID = ID_START_BUTTON + i;- }
- return buttons;
+}
Please merge this to test function.
Wouldn't it make sense to leave it separate? It might be used in another test function. It also nicely encapsulates the static variables, that was the primary reason I put it into its own function.
Regards, Fabian Maurer