Re: mpr: Changes comparison of dwScope in WNetOpenEnum function

[Juan Lang]

Hi Konstantin,

-                             providerTable->table[index].dwEnumScopes
& dwScope)
+                             providerTable->table[index].dwEnumScopes
& WNNC_ENUM_GLOBAL)

This change looks correct, but it should be changed in the next block as well:

ret = providerTable->table[index].openEnum(
                                 dwScope, dwType, dwUsage, lpNet, &handle);

It also looks incorrect in _enumerateGlobalPassthroughW:
        ret = providerTable->table[enumerator->providerIndex].
         openEnum(enumerator->dwScope, enumerator->dwType,
         enumerator->dwUsage, enumerator->lpNet,
         &enumerator->handle);

In fact, all of these usages of dwScope look to confuse the two
meanings.  (D'oh.)
--Juan

mpr: Changes comparison of dwScope in WNetOpenEnum function

[Konstantin Kondratyuk]

Hello, Juan!
> Hi Konstantin,
> -
>                         providerTable->table[index].dwEnumScopes
>
> & dwScope)
> -
>                         providerTable->table[index].dwEnumScopes
>
> & WNNC_ENUM_GLOBAL)
>
> This change looks correct, but it should be changed in the next block as
> well:
>                             ret = providerTable->table[index].openEnum(
>                              dwScope, dwType, dwUsage, lpNet, &handle);
>
> It also looks incorrect in _enumerateGlobalPassthroughW:
>         ret = providerTable->table[enumerator->providerIndex].
>          openEnum(enumerator->dwScope, enumerator->dwType,
>          enumerator->dwUsage, enumerator->lpNet,
>          &enumerator->handle);
>
> In fact, all of these usages of dwScope look to confuse the two
> meanings.  (D'oh.)
> --Juan

Well, I have looked all code in mpr/wnet.c
The following condition in _globalEnumeratorAdvance() looks incorrect:

for (; enumerator->providerIndex < providerTable->numProviders &&
         !(enumerator->dwScope & providerTable->table
         [enumerator->providerIndex].dwEnumScopes);
         enumerator->providerIndex++)

Other conditions and parameters look correctly. For example, function 
NPOpenEnum() expects a dwScope, containing RESOURCE_CONNECTED, 
RESOURCE_GLOBALNET or RESOURCE_CONTEXT.
Correct for me if I am not right.

mpr: Changes comparison of dwScope in WNetOpenEnum function

[Juan Lang]

> The following condition in _globalEnumeratorAdvance() looks incorrect:
>     for (; enumerator->providerIndex < providerTable->numProviders &&
>      !(enumerator->dwScope & providerTable->table
>      [enumerator->providerIndex].dwEnumScopes);
>      enumerator->providerIndex++)

I agree, that's not correct.
> Other conditions and parameters look correctly. For example, function
> NPOpenEnum() expects a dwScope, containing RESOURCE_CONNECTED,
> RESOURCE_GLOBALNET or RESOURCE_CONTEXT.

Ah, you're right.  It's only where dwEnumScopes is used that it's
being used incorrectly.

Your patch should probably fix both of those, then (and please ignore
my earlier comment.)

Thanks,
--Juan

mpr: Changes comparison of dwScope in WNetOpenEnum function

[Konstantin Kondratyuk]

Hello!
> Your patch should probably fix both of those, then (and please ignore
> my earlier comment.)

I have resent my patch, having added in it the passed corrections.

I have one more question. To add realization of new function, I can add it in 
struct WNetProvider? For example:

typedef struct _WNetProvider
{
    HMODULE           hLib;
    PWSTR             name;
    PF_NPGetCaps      getCaps;
    DWORD             dwSpecVersion;
    DWORD             dwNetType;
    DWORD             dwEnumScopes;
    PF_NPOpenEnum     openEnum;
    PF_NPEnumResource enumResource;
    PF_NPCloseEnum    closeEnum;
    PF_NPGetResourceInformation getResourceInformation; //my added function
} WNetProvider, *PWNetProvider;

It is correct?

mpr: Changes comparison of dwScope in WNetOpenEnum function

[Juan Lang]

Hi Konstantin,
> I have one more question. To add realization of new function, I can add it in
> struct WNetProvider? For example:
>
> typedef struct _WNetProvider

(snip)
> PF_NPGetResourceInformation getResourceInformation; //my added function
>
> } WNetProvider, *PWNetProvider;
>
> It is correct?

Yes, precisely correct.
--Juan