Re: kernel32: Correct WideCharToMultiByte and MultiByteToWideChar error codes and conditions
On 5/10/2012 00:52, Alex Henrie wrote:
This patch was a lot harder to figure out than I thought it was going to be.
The MSDN documentation of most of these behaviors can be found at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/dd319072(v=vs.85).as...
Does any application depend on that?
dlls/kernel32/locale.c | 38 ++++++++++++++--- dlls/kernel32/tests/locale.c | 94 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 126 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
This is a wrong file to place tests into.
diff --git a/dlls/kernel32/tests/locale.c b/dlls/kernel32/tests/locale.c index 3216ef9..9cbb124 100644 --- a/dlls/kernel32/tests/locale.c +++ b/dlls/kernel32/tests/locale.c @@ -3137,6 +3137,99 @@ static void test_IdnToUnicode(void) } }
+static void test_WideCharToMultiByte_error(UINT page, DWORD flags, LPCWSTR src,
INT srclen, LPSTR dst, INT dstlen,LPCSTR defchar, BOOL* used,const char* test_description,DWORD expected_error)+{
- SetLastError(ERROR_SUCCESS);
- WideCharToMultiByte(page, flags, src, srclen, dst, dstlen, defchar, used);
- ok(GetLastError() == expected_error,
"codepage %i, %s, expected error %i got error %i\n", page,test_description, expected_error, GetLastError());+}
+static void test_MultiByteToWideChar_error(UINT page, DWORD flags, LPCSTR src,
INT srclen, LPWSTR dst, INT dstlen,const char* test_description,DWORD expected_error)+{
- SetLastError(ERROR_SUCCESS);
- MultiByteToWideChar(page, flags, src, srclen, dst, dstlen);
- ok(GetLastError() == expected_error,
"codepage %i, %s, expected error %i got error %i\n", page,test_description, expected_error, GetLastError());+}
Looks ugly enough, it's better to place some test data in table and loop through it, if you really want to test that.
2012/5/9 Nikolay Sivov bunglehead@gmail.com:
Does any application depend on that?
Probably. Better safe than sorry, and Wine's current behavior definitely doesn't match what MSDN says nor what Windows actually does.
dlls/kernel32/locale.c | 38 ++++++++++++++--- dlls/kernel32/tests/locale.c | 94 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 126 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
This is a wrong file to place tests into.
Which file should I have used?
Looks ugly enough, it's better to place some test data in table and loop through it, if you really want to test that.
A loop is probably overkill, but I will clean it up some more. Thanks for the feedback,
-Alex
On 5/10/2012 07:38, Alex Henrie wrote:
2012/5/9 Nikolay Sivovbunglehead@gmail.com:
Does any application depend on that?
Probably. Better safe than sorry, and Wine's current behavior definitely doesn't match what MSDN says nor what Windows actually does.
dlls/kernel32/locale.c | 38 ++++++++++++++--- dlls/kernel32/tests/locale.c | 94 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 126 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
This is a wrong file to place tests into.
Which file should I have used?
codepage.c, you could search all test files for a thing you're trying to add.
Looks ugly enough, it's better to place some test data in table and loop through it, if you really want to test that.
A loop is probably overkill, but I will clean it up some more. Thanks for the feedback,
Nothing really changed in try3, test helpers names are still meaningless. Also you'll be probably asked to split this, cause your changes are independent - validation of input parameters and flags handling are separate fixes.
-Alex
2012/5/10 Nikolay Sivov bunglehead@gmail.com:
Which file should I have used?
codepage.c, you could search all test files for a thing you're trying to add.
Okay, I've moved the tests to codepage.c in try 4. Thanks for the tip, I'll keep that in mind from now on.
Nothing really changed in try3, test helpers names are still meaningless.
Well, what should I name them?
Also you'll be probably asked to split this, cause your changes are independent - validation of input parameters and flags handling are separate fixes.
In this case, we're just validating that flags is 0, which is the same idea as the other parameter checks, so it should be fine.
-
Alex Henrie -
Nikolay Sivov