[PATCH v3 4/5] comctl32: LVM_INSERTITEM handler should send LVN_ITEMCHANGING/LVN_ITEMCHANGED notifications when the item state includes LVIS_FOCUSED | LVIS_SELECTED.

[Dmitry Timoshkov]

Signed-off-by: Dmitry Timoshkov 
---
 dlls/comctl32/listview.c       | 10 ++++++----
 dlls/comctl32/tests/listview.c |  6 +++---
 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/dlls/comctl32/listview.c b/dlls/comctl32/listview.c
index cd7fec28e27..5c3b1a1636c 100644
--- a/dlls/comctl32/listview.c
+++ b/dlls/comctl32/listview.c
@@ -4260,11 +4260,12 @@ static BOOL set_main_item(LISTVIEW_INFO *infoPtr, const LVITEMW *lpLVItem, BOOL
     nmlv.uChanged = uChanged ? uChanged : lpLVItem->mask;
     nmlv.lParam = item.lParam;

-    /* Send LVN_ITEMCHANGING notification, if the item is not being inserted
+    /* Send LVN_ITEMCHANGING notification if the item is not being
+       inserted or its state includes LVIS_FOCUSED | LVIS_SELECTED,
        and we are _NOT_ virtual (LVS_OWNERDATA), and change notifications
        are enabled. Even nothing really changed we still need to send this,
        in this case uChanged mask is just set to passed item mask. */
-    if (lpItem && !isNew && (infoPtr->notify_mask & NOTIFY_MASK_ITEM_CHANGE))
+    if (lpItem && (!isNew || ((uChanged & LVIF_STATE) && (lpLVItem->state & (LVIS_FOCUSED | LVIS_SELECTED)))) && (infoPtr->notify_mask & NOTIFY_MASK_ITEM_CHANGE))
     {
       HWND hwndSelf = infoPtr->hwndSelf;

@@ -4352,8 +4353,9 @@ static BOOL set_main_item(LISTVIEW_INFO *infoPtr, const LVITEMW *lpLVItem, BOOL
    }
     }

-    /* if we're inserting the item, we're done */
-    if (isNew) return TRUE;
+    /* if we're inserting the item and its state doesn't specify LVIS_FOCUSED | LVIS_SELECTED, we're done */
+    if (isNew && !((uChanged & LVIF_STATE) && (lpLVItem->state & (LVIS_FOCUSED | LVIS_SELECTED))))
+        return TRUE;

/* send LVN_ITEMCHANGED notification */
     if (lpLVItem->mask & LVIF_PARAM) nmlv.lParam = lpLVItem->lParam;
diff --git a/dlls/comctl32/tests/listview.c b/dlls/comctl32/tests/listview.c
index 4c2dd534dbd..92e11685331 100644
--- a/dlls/comctl32/tests/listview.c
+++ b/dlls/comctl32/tests/listview.c
@@ -6023,7 +6023,7 @@ static void test_LVM_INSERTITEM(void)
         if ((insert_item[i].mask & LVIF_STATE) && (insert_item[i].state & (LVIS_FOCUSED | LVIS_SELECTED)))
         {
             sprintf(buf, "%d: insert focused", i);
-            ok_sequence(sequences, PARENT_SEQ_INDEX, parent_insert_focused0_seq, buf, TRUE);
+            ok_sequence(sequences, PARENT_SEQ_INDEX, parent_insert_focused0_seq, buf, insert_item[i].mask != LVIF_STATE);
         }
         else
         {
@@ -6060,7 +6060,7 @@ static void test_insertitem(void)
     item.iSubItem = 0;
     ret = SendMessageA(hwnd, LVM_INSERTITEMA, 0, (LPARAM)&item);
     ok(ret == 0, "got %d\n", ret);
-    ok_sequence(sequences, PARENT_SEQ_INDEX, parent_insert_focused0_seq, "insert focused 0", TRUE);
+    ok_sequence(sequences, PARENT_SEQ_INDEX, parent_insert_focused0_seq, "insert focused 0", FALSE);

state = SendMessageA(hwnd, LVM_GETITEMSTATE, 0, LVIS_FOCUSED);
     ok(state == LVIS_FOCUSED, "got %x\n", state);
@@ -6073,7 +6073,7 @@ static void test_insertitem(void)
     item.iSubItem = 0;
     ret = SendMessageA(hwnd, LVM_INSERTITEMA, 0, (LPARAM)&item);
     ok(ret == 1, "got %d\n", ret);
-    ok_sequence(sequences, PARENT_SEQ_INDEX, parent_insert_focused1_seq, "insert focused 1", TRUE);
+    ok_sequence(sequences, PARENT_SEQ_INDEX, parent_insert_focused1_seq, "insert focused 1", FALSE);

state = SendMessageA(hwnd, LVM_GETITEMSTATE, 1, LVIS_FOCUSED);
     ok(state == LVIS_FOCUSED, "got %x\n", state);

[Nikolay Sivov]

Does attached patch work for you? It moves condition to a single place, 
and simplifies CHANGED message path a bit.

[Dmitry Timoshkov]

Nikolay Sivov  wrote:
> Does attached patch work for you? It moves condition to a single place, 
> and simplifies CHANGED message path a bit.

Thanks for keeping working at this.

Since this patch also fixes the tests it should also work the application
that I have here. The simplification looks good to me.