user32: Add a test for ToUnicode - Win9x behaviour

[Andre Wisplinghoff]

Hello,

I think my patch [1] shouldn't be applied, because I didn't think about 
older versions of Windows. According to MSDN, ToUnicode has NT 3.1 as a 
minimum, meaning we should test if the function is unimplemented and 
skip the test in this case (Win9x Systems). Unfortunately I don't have a 
Win9x system ready for testing at the moment. Is adding the following 
after the first call to ToUnicode enough to handle this issue?

if (GetLastError() == ERROR_CALL_NOT_IMPLEMENTED)
{
    trace("Skipping the ToUnicode test on a Win9x platform\n");
    return;
}

Best Regards
-- Andre Wisplinghoff

[1] http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2008-July/058745.html

[Paul Vriens]

Andre Wisplinghoff wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I think my patch [1] shouldn't be applied, because I didn't think about 
> older versions of Windows. According to MSDN, ToUnicode has NT 3.1 as a 
> minimum, meaning we should test if the function is unimplemented and 
> skip the test in this case (Win9x Systems). Unfortunately I don't have a 
> Win9x system ready for testing at the moment. Is adding the following 
> after the first call to ToUnicode enough to handle this issue?
>
> if (GetLastError() == ERROR_CALL_NOT_IMPLEMENTED)
> {
>     trace("Skipping the ToUnicode test on a Win9x platform\n");
>     return;
> }
>
> Best Regards
> -- Andre Wisplinghoff
>
> [1] http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2008-July/058745.html

I ran your tests on win95 and win98 and both have at least the function 
available but as you've stated it's not implemented.

Current approach for dealing with this is for example:

SetLastError(0xdeadbeef);
ret = ToUnicode(...);
if (!ret && GetLastError() == ERROR_CALL_NOT_IMPLEMENTED)
{
     skip("ToUnicode is not implemented\n");
     return;
}

or something along those lines. Notice the handy skip() function we have for 
skipping tests. This will make sure that skipped tests will be marked as such in 
the test reports.

[Andre Wisplinghoff]

> I ran your tests on win95 and win98 and both have at least the 
> function available but as you've stated it's not implemented.
>
> Current approach for dealing with this is for example:
>
> SetLastError(0xdeadbeef);
> ret = ToUnicode(...);
> if (!ret && GetLastError() == ERROR_CALL_NOT_IMPLEMENTED)
> {
>     skip("ToUnicode is not implemented\n");
>     return;
> }
>
> or something along those lines. Notice the handy skip() function we 
> have for skipping tests. This will make sure that skipped tests will 
> be marked as such in the test reports.

Thanks for your help! I've resent my patch:
http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2008-July/058803.html

Best Regards
-- Andre

[Nikolay Sivov]

Andre Wisplinghoff wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I think my patch [1] shouldn't be applied, because I didn't think about 
> older versions of Windows. According to MSDN, ToUnicode has NT 3.1 as a 
> minimum, meaning we should test if the function is unimplemented and 
> skip the test in this case (Win9x Systems). Unfortunately I don't have a 
> Win9x system ready for testing at the moment. Is adding the following 
> after the first call to ToUnicode enough to handle this issue?
>
> if (GetLastError() == ERROR_CALL_NOT_IMPLEMENTED)
> {
>     trace("Skipping the ToUnicode test on a Win9x platform\n");
>     return;
> }
>
> Best Regards
> -- Andre Wisplinghoff
>
> [1] http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2008-July/058745.html

You should use dynamic linking here (GetProcAddress).

[Andre Wisplinghoff]

Nikolay Sivov wrote:
> You should use dynamic linking here (GetProcAddress).

Is this necessary even though the function is there on 9x - returning 
unimplemented - as Paul wrote? I think you would need to do this if the 
function weren't there at all on some systems.

Best Regards
-- Andre Wisplinghoff

[Nikolay Sivov]

Andre Wisplinghoff wrote:
> Nikolay Sivov wrote:
> > You should use dynamic linking here (GetProcAddress).
>
> Is this necessary even though the function is there on 9x - returning 
> unimplemented - as Paul wrote? I think you would need to do this if 
> the function weren't there at all on some systems.
>
> Best Regards
> -- Andre Wisplinghoff

You're right of course. Sorry for that, I thought it isn't even stubbed 
on Win9x.