On 04.07.2015 7:40, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Nikolay Sivov bunglehead@gmail.com wrote:
/* If the ILockBytes doesn't support locking that's ok. */
- if (hr == STG_E_INVALIDFUNCTION) return S_OK;
if (hr == STG_E_INVALIDFUNCTION || hr == STG_E_UNIMPLEMENTEDFUNCTION) return S_OK; else if (FAILED(hr)) return hr;
hr = S_OK;
It looks like StorageImpl_LockRegionSync should be fixed instead to filter some error codes. Could you add a test with external ILockBytes implementation that does that?
Thers is no any comment or a test case about accepting ILockByte failures neither in the original commit 65887802c502c4eeeb3fc905990e3e2f4548a482, nor in the next one 1645f7b9e30e01bc92a8bfd1febe76d4856e046e which limits accepted error codes to STG_E_INVALIDFUNCTION.
Well it doesn't matter, we don't have tests for many things, it doesn't mean we shouldn't ever think about having one.
Besides, my patch fixes a regression caused by IStorage locking rewrite, and should be pretty obvious without a test case. With this regression fixed an application that I have here can open its database files again as it was before.
If you really insist on a test case, please ask Vincent, he is the original authour of this implementation.
He's not the one sending this, so why should he be writing tests for your changes?