[PATCH v2 0/1] MR2254: vbscript/tests: Fix the testChrError() tests.

[Francois Gouget (＠fgouget)]

v2: Fixed a typo in the commit message.

--
  v2: vbscript/tests: Fix the testChrError() tests.

https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/2254

[PATCH v2 1/1] vbscript/tests: Fix the testChrError() tests.

[Francois Gouget]

From: Francois Gouget

Chr() depends on the thread's ANSI code page which in some cases is different
from the Windows ANSI code page (e.g. hi-IN).

Wine-Bug: https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=54003
---
 dlls/vbscript/tests/run.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/dlls/vbscript/tests/run.c b/dlls/vbscript/tests/run.c
index 4158aa28197..294b635ea41 100644
--- a/dlls/vbscript/tests/run.c
+++ b/dlls/vbscript/tests/run.c
@@ -239,7 +239,7 @@ static void detect_locale(void)
                   PRIMARYLANGID(GetUserDefaultUILanguage()) == LANG_ENGLISH &&
                   PRIMARYLANGID(GetUserDefaultLangID()) == LANG_ENGLISH);

-    GetCPInfoExA( CP_ACP, 0, &cpinfo );
+    GetCPInfoExA( CP_THREAD_ACP, 0, &cpinfo );
     MaxCharSize = cpinfo.MaxCharSize;

GetLocaleInfoA(LOCALE_USER_DEFAULT, LOCALE_IFIRSTDAYOFWEEK | LOCALE_RETURN_NUMBER,

[Nikolay Sivov (＠nsivov)]

Do we need to change something in implementation as well to match this?

[PATCH v2 0/1] MR2254: vbscript/tests: Fix the testChrError() tests. - closed

[Francois Gouget (＠fgouget)]

This merge request was closed by Francois Gouget.

[Francois Gouget (＠fgouget)]

Actually it's vbscript:run itself which decides on the code page.

More specifically it implements the GetLCID() method which returns GetUserDefaultLCID(), and that's why VBScript_SetScriptSite() initializes the interpreter with a code page that matches the CP_THREAD_ACP code page (the code path is pretty different but as far as I can tell it resolves to the same in the end).

That said, even if our test did not implement the GetLCID() method, then VBScript_SetScriptSite() would also default to GetUserDefaultLCID() so we'd still end up with the same code page.

So I don't think we need to modify the implementation.