[PATCH v4 0/2] MR5909: comctl32/listview: Prevent LISTVIEW_GetNextItem failure after checking last item state in list

[Ilia Docin (＠IDocin)]

--
  v4: comctl32/listview: Add test for LVM_GETNEXTITEM
      comctl32/listview: Prevent LISTVIEW_GetNextItem failure after checking last item state in list

https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/5909

[PATCH v4 1/2] comctl32/listview: Prevent LISTVIEW_GetNextItem failure after checking last item state in list

[Ilia Docin]

From: Ilia Docin

---
 dlls/comctl32/listview.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/dlls/comctl32/listview.c b/dlls/comctl32/listview.c
index c82473b6205..b7ef90635ba 100644
--- a/dlls/comctl32/listview.c
+++ b/dlls/comctl32/listview.c
@@ -7371,7 +7371,7 @@ static INT LISTVIEW_GetNextItem(const LISTVIEW_INFO *infoPtr, INT nItem, UINT uF
     {
       if ((infoPtr->uView == LV_VIEW_LIST) || (infoPtr->uView == LV_VIEW_DETAILS))
       {
-        while (nItem < infoPtr->nItemCount)
+        while (nItem < infoPtr->nItemCount - 1)
         {
           nItem++;
           if ((LISTVIEW_GetItemState(infoPtr, nItem, uMask) & uMask) == uMask)

[PATCH v4 2/2] comctl32/listview: Add test for LVM_GETNEXTITEM

[Ilia Docin]

From: Ilia Docin

---
 dlls/comctl32/tests/listview.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+)

diff --git a/dlls/comctl32/tests/listview.c b/dlls/comctl32/tests/listview.c
index 1081a045cde..98acd6c32a8 100644
--- a/dlls/comctl32/tests/listview.c
+++ b/dlls/comctl32/tests/listview.c
@@ -7162,6 +7162,34 @@ static void test_LVM_SETBKIMAGE(BOOL is_v6)
     CoUninitialize();
 }

+static void test_LVM_GETNEXTITEM(void)
+{
+    /* LVM_GETNEXTITEM */
+
+    HWND hwnd;
+    DWORD r;
+    UINT uFlagsAbove = MAKELPARAM(LVNI_ABOVE, 0);
+    UINT uFlagsBelow = MAKELPARAM(LVNI_BELOW, 0);
+
+    hwnd = create_listview_control(LVS_REPORT);
+    insert_item(hwnd, 0);
+    insert_item(hwnd, 1);
+    insert_item(hwnd, 2);
+
+    r = SendMessageA(hwnd, LVM_GETNEXTITEM, 0, uFlagsAbove);
+    expect(-1, r);
+    r = SendMessageA(hwnd, LVM_GETNEXTITEM, 0, uFlagsBelow);
+    expect(1, r);
+    r = SendMessageA(hwnd, LVM_GETNEXTITEM, 1, uFlagsAbove);
+    expect(0, r);
+    r = SendMessageA(hwnd, LVM_GETNEXTITEM, 1, uFlagsBelow);
+    expect(2, r);
+    r = SendMessageA(hwnd, LVM_GETNEXTITEM, 2, uFlagsAbove);
+    expect(1, r);
+    r = SendMessageA(hwnd, LVM_GETNEXTITEM, 2, uFlagsBelow);
+    expect(-1, r);
+}
+
 START_TEST(listview)
 {
     ULONG_PTR ctx_cookie;
@@ -7275,6 +7303,7 @@ START_TEST(listview)
     test_item_state_change();
     test_selected_column();
     test_LVM_GETNEXTITEMINDEX();
+    test_LVM_GETNEXTITEM();
     test_LVM_SETBKIMAGE(TRUE);

unload_v6_module(ctx_cookie, hCtx);

[PATCH v4 2/2] comctl32/listview: Add test for LVM_GETNEXTITEM

[Marvin]

Hi,

It looks like your patch introduced the new failures shown below.
Please investigate and fix them before resubmitting your patch.
If they are not new, fixing them anyway would help a lot. Otherwise
please ask for the known failures list to be updated.

The tests also ran into some preexisting test failures. If you know how
to fix them that would be helpful. See the TestBot job for the details:

The full results can be found at:
https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=147032

Your paranoid android.

=== debian11b (64 bit WoW report) ===

ddraw:
ddraw1.c:3645: Test failed: Expected (0,0)-(640,480), got (-32000,-32000)-(-31840,-31969).

[Ilia Docin (＠IDocin)]

On Wed Jul 10 07:50:38 2024 +0000, Zhiyi Zhang wrote:
> Hi, could you add a test?

Added.