Re: user32/tests: Add tests for STM_SETIMAGE and STM_SETICON messageprocessing

[Dmitry Timoshkov]

"Ilya Shpigor"  wrote:
> - SendMessageW(hStatic, STM_SETIMAGE, (WPARAM)IMAGE_BITMAP, (LPARAM)hbm);
> - res = SendMessageW(hStatic, STM_SETIMAGE, (WPARAM)IMAGE_BITMAP, (LPARAM)hbm);
> - ok(!res, "expected NULL got 0x%lx\n", res);
> -
> - SendMessageW(hStatic, STM_SETIMAGE, (WPARAM)IMAGE_ICON, (LPARAM)hicon);
> - res = SendMessageW(hStatic, STM_SETIMAGE, (WPARAM)IMAGE_ICON, (LPARAM)hicon);
> - ok(!res, "expected NULL got 0x%lx\n", res);
> -
> - SendMessageW(hStatic, STM_SETICON, (WPARAM)hicon, 0);
> - res = SendMessageW(hStatic, STM_SETICON, (WPARAM)hicon, 0);
> - ok(!res, "expected NULL got 0x%lx\n", res);
> -
> - SendMessageW(hStatic, STM_SETIMAGE, (WPARAM)IMAGE_ENHMETAFILE, (LPARAM)hemf);
> - res = SendMessageW(hStatic, STM_SETIMAGE, (WPARAM)IMAGE_ENHMETAFILE, (LPARAM)hemf);
> - ok(!res, "expected NULL got 0x%lx\n", res);

Is there a reason you are calling SendMessageW twice (here and in the following tests)?

user32/tests: Add tests for STM_SETIMAGE and STM_SETICON messageprocessing

[Ilya Shpigor]

On Tuesday 22 September 2009 06:53:31 you wrote:
> > - SendMessageW(hStatic, STM_SETIMAGE, (WPARAM)IMAGE_ENHMETAFILE,
> >
> > (LPARAM)hemf); +    res = SendMessageW(hStatic, STM_SETIMAGE,
> > (WPARAM)IMAGE_ENHMETAFILE, (LPARAM)hemf); +    ok(!res, "expected NULL
> > got 0x%lx\n", res);
>
> Is there a reason you are calling SendMessageW twice (here and in the
> following tests)?

Yes. This calls are needed for checking the previous images/icons.

First call sets the image. Second call is used to get handle to this image in 
the return value. This is no sending STM_GETIMAGE because the purpose is 
testing the processing of the STM_SETIMAGE message when the static control 
type is incompatible with the image type.

The SendMessage with STM_SETIMAGE return NULL when there is error occured or 
there is no images associated with the control yet. SendMessage is called 
twice to differ this two cases.

You are right. There is a lot of SendMessage calls. I will try to fix it.