Re: [PATCH] gdi32/tests: Check values returned from GetPath

[Huw Davies]

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 02:01:25PM +1100, Alistair Leslie-Hughes wrote:
> diff --git a/dlls/gdi32/tests/metafile.c b/dlls/gdi32/tests/metafile.c
> index 6804a96..b3f164d 100644
> --- a/dlls/gdi32/tests/metafile.c
> +++ b/dlls/gdi32/tests/metafile.c
> @@ -3361,12 +3361,46 @@ static void test_emf_polybezier(void)
>      DeleteEnhMetaFile(hemf);
>  }
>
> +static const unsigned char EMF_PATH_BITS[] =
> +{
> - 0x01, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x6c, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
> - 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
> - 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff,
> - 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
> - 0xdd, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xdd, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff,
> - 0x20, 0x45, 0x4d, 0x46, 0x00, 0x00, 0x01, 0x00,
> - 0xe0, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x09, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
> - 0x01, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
> - 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
> - 0x00, 0x05, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x04, 0x00, 0x00,
> - 0xc4, 0x01, 0x00, 0x00, 0x69, 0x01, 0x00, 0x00,
> - 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
> - 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0xe3, 0xe3, 0x06, 0x00,
> - 0x1c, 0x83, 0x05, 0x00, 0x3b, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
> - 0x08, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x1b, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
> - 0x10, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x32, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
> - 0x32, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x36, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
> - 0x10, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x32, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
> - 0x96, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x36, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
> - 0x10, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x96, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
> - 0x96, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x36, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
> - 0x10, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x96, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
> - 0x32, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x36, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
> - 0x10, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x32, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
> - 0x32, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x3c, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
> - 0x08, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x0e, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
> - 0x14, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
> - 0x10, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x14, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00
>
> +};
> -
>
> static void test_emf_GetPath(void)
>  {
>      HDC hdcMetafile;
>      HENHMETAFILE hemf;
>      BOOL ret;
>      int size;
> -
>
> POINT *points;
> -
>
> BYTE  *types;
>
> SetLastError(0xdeadbeef);
> hdcMetafile = CreateEnhMetaFileA(GetDC(0), NULL, NULL, NULL);
>
> @@ -3387,10 +3421,37 @@ static void test_emf_GetPath(void)
>  size = GetPath(hdcMetafile, NULL, NULL, 0);
>  todo_wine ok( size == 5, "GetPath returned %d.\n", size);
> -
>
> if(size == 5)
> -
>
> {
> -
>    points = HeapAlloc(GetProcessHeap(), 0, size * sizeof(POINT));
> -
>    types = HeapAlloc(GetProcessHeap(), 0, size );
> -
> -
>    GetPath(hdcMetafile, points, types, size);
> -
> -
>    ok(types[0] == PT_MOVETO, "unexpected value %d\n", types[0]);
> -
>    ok(points[0].x == 50 && points[0].y == 50, "unexpected point (%d,%d)\n", points[0].x, points[0].y);
> -
>    ok(types[1] == PT_LINETO, "unexpected value %d\n", types[1]);
> -
>    ok(points[1].x == 50 && points[1].y == 150, "unexpected point (%d,%d)\n", points[1].x, points[1].y);
> -
>    ok(types[2] == PT_LINETO, "unexpected value %d\n", types[2]);
> -
>    ok(points[2].x == 150 && points[2].y == 150, "unexpected point (%d,%d)\n", points[2].x, points[2].y);
> -
>    ok(types[3] == PT_LINETO, "unexpected value %d\n", types[3]);
> -
>    ok(points[3].x == 150 && points[3].y == 50, "unexpected point (%d,%d)\n", points[3].x, points[3].y);
> -
>    ok(types[4] == PT_LINETO, "unexpected value %d\n", types[4]);
> -
>    ok(points[4].x == 50 && points[4].y == 50, "unexpected point (%d,%d)\n", points[4].x, points[4].y);
> -
> -
>    HeapFree(GetProcessHeap(), 0, points);
> -
>    HeapFree(GetProcessHeap(), 0, types);
> -
>
> }
>
> hemf = CloseEnhMetaFile(hdcMetafile);
> ok(hemf != 0, "CloseEnhMetaFile error %d\n", GetLastError());
> -
>
> if (compare_emf_bits(hemf, EMF_PATH_BITS, sizeof(EMF_PATH_BITS), "test_emf_GetPath", FALSE) != 0)
> -
>
> {
> -
>    dump_emf_bits(hemf, "test_emf_GetPath");
> -
>    dump_emf_records(hemf, "test_emf_GetPath");
> -
>
> }
> -
>
> DeleteEnhMetaFile(hemf);
>
> }

Please add a Rectangle() call to the path building code.  This will
show that the metafile doesn't just consist of path elements.

Also, as discussed yesterday, please add a similar test for wmfs (this
could be a separate patch).

Thanks,
Huw.