This patch adds a few tests for scrollbar behavior in Windows. It shows that if the window was created with at least WS_VSCROLL or WS_HSCROLL styles, WinXP returns default information for scrollbar range, but Win98 returns an error, until first initialized. This error does not change if styles are set or cleared before initializing ranges. On both versions, setting either scrollbar range automatically initializes both if required (Wine still returned error for the other scrollbar - fix included). I have tried to test this on Win98 and WinXP-SP2, but maybe other versions are different. Could you please test this patch? Also, is it OK to tell apart Win9x vs. WinXP behavior in the way it is done in this patch? Once either behavior is identified, it is consistent on all future tests, as shown by the tests. Wine fixed to implement Win98 behavior.
Changelog:
* Document and test differences between WinXP and Win98 scrollbar behavior * Make tests pass under Wine (Win98 behavior)
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 3:34 PM, Alex Villacís Lasso a_villacis@palosanto.com wrote:
Why in the world would you implement Win98 behavior over WinXP, especially since the WinXP behavior is more logical and (probably, haven't looked) stated on msdn?
+ if (!(hBarEnabled || vBarEnabled)) { + ok(!r2, "GetScrollInfo incorrectly succeeded\n"); + ok(( r == ERROR_NO_SCROLLBARS /* WinXP */ + || r == 0xdeadbeef /* Win98 */ ), + "GetLastError returned 0x%08lx expected 0x%08x (ERROR_NO_SCROLLBARS or 0xdeadbeef)\n", + r, ERROR_NO_SCROLLBARS);
That's hideous spacing just for the sake of lining up some error codes.
+ ok(si.nMin == 0xdeadbeef, "si.nMin == 0x%x, expected 0xdeadbeef\n", si.nMin); + ok(si.nMax == 0xdeadbeef, "si.nMax == 0x%x, expected 0xdeadbeef\n", si.nMax); + ok(si.nPos == 0xdeadbeef, "si.nPos == 0x%x, expected 0xdeadbeef\n", si.nPos); + ok(si.nPage == 0xdeadbeef, "si.nPage == 0x%x, expected 0xdeadbeef\n", si.nPage); + + if (r == ERROR_NO_SCROLLBARS) behavior_winxp = TRUE; + if (r == 0xdeadbeef) behavior_win98 = TRUE; + } else { + if (r2) { + ok(si.nMin == 0, "si.nMin == %d, expected 0\n", si.nMin); + ok(si.nMax == 100, "si.nMax == %d, expected 100\n", si.nMax); + ok(si.nPos == 0, "si.nPos == %d, expected 0\n", si.nPos); + ok(si.nPage == 0, "si.nPage == %d, expected 0\n", si.nPage); + + behavior_winxp = TRUE; + } else { + ok(r == 0xdeadbeef, "GetScrollInfo failed, error is %ld (0x%08lx) expected 0xdeadbeef\n", r, r); + + behavior_win98 = TRUE; + } + }
This is seriously complex (in a bad way). I think you've tried to factor too much into one function. You don't need to set and check the version, just test for both cases that are expected, like all the other tests:
ok(si.nMin == 0 || si.nMin == 0xdeadbeef, "si.nMin == 0x%x, expected 0 or 0xdeadbeef\n", si.nMin);
2008/6/30 James Hawkins truiken@gmail.com:
Francois Gouget also implemented a broken() method so you can get Wine to do the right thing, something like:
ok(si.nMin == 0 /* XP */ || broken(si.nMin == 0xdeadbeef) /* 98 */ , "si.nMin == 0x%x, expected 0 or 0xdeadbeef\n", si.nMin);
- Reece
I did not implement Win98 behavior - it was already implemented that way in Wine, except for one difference that was found and changed to be consistent. Having said that, I agree that it is better to implement the WinXP behavior. I will do that in a future patch.
Reece Dunn escribió:
Thanks for the reminder. I will use it.
-
Alex Villacís Lasso -
James Hawkins -
Reece Dunn