On 07/29/2010 08:55 AM, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
- SetLastError(0xdeadbeef);
- ret = GetClassInfoEx(0, "static", NULL);
Why not the explicit A-function? I see there is already an existing call in the current tests, but still.
- ok(!ret, "GetClassInfoEx() should fail\n");
- ok(GetLastError() == ERROR_NOACCESS, "expected ERROR_NOACCESS, got %d\n", GetLastError());
- SetLastError(0xdeadbeef);
- ret = GetClassInfoExW(0, staticW, NULL);
- ok(!ret, "GetClassInfoExW() should fail\n");
- ok(GetLastError() == ERROR_NOACCESS ||
GetLastError() == ERROR_CALL_NOT_IMPLEMENTED, /* win9x */
Wouldn't broken() be more appropriate?
Paul Vriens paul.vriens.wine@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/29/2010 08:55 AM, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
- SetLastError(0xdeadbeef);
- ret = GetClassInfoEx(0, "static", NULL);
Why not the explicit A-function? I see there is already an existing call in the current tests, but still.
An API without a suffix is A by default.
- ok(!ret, "GetClassInfoEx() should fail\n");
- ok(GetLastError() == ERROR_NOACCESS, "expected ERROR_NOACCESS, got %d\n", GetLastError());
- SetLastError(0xdeadbeef);
- ret = GetClassInfoExW(0, staticW, NULL);
- ok(!ret, "GetClassInfoExW() should fail\n");
- ok(GetLastError() == ERROR_NOACCESS ||
GetLastError() == ERROR_CALL_NOT_IMPLEMENTED, /* win9x */
Wouldn't broken() be more appropriate?
Probably, but I'd argue that returning ERROR_CALL_NOT_IMPLEMENTED differs from returning actually wrong error code.