On 04.11.2017 18:22, Fabian Maurer wrote:
Signed-off-by: Fabian Maurer dark.shadow4@web.de
dlls/comctl32/taskdialog.c | 21 +++++-- dlls/comctl32/tests/taskdialog.c | 115 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 130 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/dlls/comctl32/taskdialog.c b/dlls/comctl32/taskdialog.c index 5c4af2ab03..4f80311a61 100644 --- a/dlls/comctl32/taskdialog.c +++ b/dlls/comctl32/taskdialog.c @@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ static void taskdialog_get_text_extent(const struct taskdialog_template_desc *de }
static unsigned int taskdialog_add_control(struct taskdialog_template_desc *desc, WORD id, const WCHAR *class,
HINSTANCE hInstance, const WCHAR *text, short x, short y, short cx, short cy)
HINSTANCE hInstance, const WCHAR *text, DWORD style, short x, short y, short cx, short cy){ struct taskdialog_control *control = Alloc(sizeof(*control)); unsigned int size, class_size, text_size; @@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ static unsigned int taskdialog_add_control(struct taskdialog_template_desc *desc control->template = template = Alloc(size); control->template_size = size;
- template->style = WS_VISIBLE;
- template->style = WS_VISIBLE | style; template->dwExtendedStyle = 0; template->x = x; template->y = y;
@@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ static unsigned int taskdialog_add_static_label(struct taskdialog_template_desc taskdialog_get_text_extent(desc, str, TRUE, &sz);
desc->dialog_height += DIALOG_SPACING;
- size = taskdialog_add_control(desc, id, WC_STATICW, desc->taskconfig->hInstance, str, DIALOG_SPACING,
- size = taskdialog_add_control(desc, id, WC_STATICW, desc->taskconfig->hInstance, str, 0, DIALOG_SPACING, desc->dialog_height, sz.cx, sz.cy); desc->dialog_height += sz.cy + DIALOG_SPACING; return size;
@@ -268,6 +268,7 @@ static unsigned int taskdialog_add_buttons(struct taskdialog_template_desc *desc unsigned int location_x, *line_widths, alignment = ~0u; const TASKDIALOGCONFIG *taskconfig = desc->taskconfig; struct taskdialog_button_desc *buttons;
int default_button;
/* Allocate enough memory for the custom and the default buttons. Maximum 6 default buttons possible. */ buttons_size = 6;
@@ -340,18 +341,26 @@ static unsigned int taskdialog_add_buttons(struct taskdialog_template_desc *desc alignment = new_alignment; }
- /* Check if the default button is actually valid, if no default to the first created button */
- default_button = buttons[0].id;
- for (i = 0; i < count; i++)
if (buttons[i].id == taskconfig->nDefaultButton)default_button = taskconfig->nDefaultButton;
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.
@@ -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.
+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.
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
On 05.11.2017 14:17, Fabian Maurer wrote:
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?
Yes, something like that. taskdialog_init_button() has all the info to do that.
@@ -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?
It is wrong now, but it's been like that for a while, I don't want to risk that.
+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.
I don't think it makes sense to have it separated, not in a way it's done currently.
Regards, Fabian Maurer
-
Fabian Maurer -
Nikolay Sivov