The listview bug is caused by passing the incorrect index to the LISTVIEW_SortItems callers custom compare function. If we pass the copied array indices, which are different because of the sorting, the caller is going to use those indices for their unsorted array which don't match.
Wine-Bug: https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56140
-- v3: comctl32: Fix sorting for listview. comctl32/tests: Add test for listview sorting order.
From: Jacob Czekalla jczekalla@codeweavers.com
--- dlls/comctl32/tests/listview.c | 79 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 79 insertions(+)
diff --git a/dlls/comctl32/tests/listview.c b/dlls/comctl32/tests/listview.c index 1081a045cde..78751f3c720 100644 --- a/dlls/comctl32/tests/listview.c +++ b/dlls/comctl32/tests/listview.c @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ #include <stdio.h> #include <windows.h> #include <commctrl.h> +#include <time.h> #include <objbase.h>
#include "wine/test.h" @@ -3028,6 +3029,82 @@ static void test_subitem_rect(void) DestroyWindow(hwnd); }
+static INT WINAPI test_CallBackCompareEx(LPARAM first, LPARAM second, LPARAM lParam) +{ + HWND hwnd_List_view = (HWND)lParam; + CHAR buffer1[256], buffer2[256]; + int itm1, itm2; + + ListView_GetItemTextA(hwnd_List_view, first, 0, buffer1, sizeof(buffer1)); + ListView_GetItemTextA(hwnd_List_view, second, 0, buffer2, sizeof(buffer2)); + + itm1 = atoi(buffer1); + itm2 = atoi(buffer2); + + return (itm1 - itm2); +} + +static void test_sort_order(void) +{ + LVITEMA lvi = {0}; + LV_COLUMNA lvc = {0}; + RECT rcClient; + CHAR buffer[256]; + CHAR col_names[][2] = { "1", "2" }; + HWND hwndListView = create_listview_control(LVS_REPORT); + int prev_value; + + GetClientRect(hwndparent, &rcClient); + + lvc.mask = LVCF_TEXT | LVCF_WIDTH | LVCF_SUBITEM; + lvc.pszText = col_names[0]; + lvc.cx = rcClient.right / 2; + lvc.iSubItem = 0; + ListView_InsertColumnA(hwndListView, 0, &lvc); + + lvc.pszText = col_names[1]; + lvc.iSubItem = 1; + lvc.cx = rcClient.right / 2; + ListView_InsertColumnA(hwndListView, 1, &lvc); + + srand((unsigned)time(NULL)); + + for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) + { + lvi.mask = LVIF_TEXT; + lvi.iItem = i; + lvi.iSubItem = 0; + lvi.pszText = buffer; + sprintf(buffer, "%d", rand() % 100); + ListView_InsertItemA(hwndListView, &lvi); + + sprintf(buffer, "%d", rand() % 100); + ListView_SetItemTextA(hwndListView, i, 1, buffer); + } + + SendMessageA(hwndListView, LVM_SORTITEMSEX, (WPARAM) hwndListView, (LPARAM) test_CallBackCompareEx); + + memset(&lvi, 0, sizeof(lvi)); + for (int i = 1; i < 100; i++) + { + ListView_GetItemTextA(hwndListView, i-1, 0, buffer, sizeof(buffer)); + prev_value = atoi(buffer); + + ListView_GetItemTextA(hwndListView, i, 0, buffer, sizeof(buffer)); + + if (atoi(buffer) < prev_value) + { + prev_value = 1; + break; + } + prev_value = 0; + } + + todo_wine ok(!prev_value, "ListView not sorted correctly.\n"); + + DestroyWindow(hwndListView); +} + /* comparison callback for test_sorting */ static INT WINAPI test_CallBackCompare(LPARAM first, LPARAM second, LPARAM lParam) { @@ -3211,6 +3288,8 @@ static void test_sorting(void) ok(lstrcmpA(buff, names[3]) == 0, "Expected '%s', got '%s'\n", names[3], buff);
DestroyWindow(hwnd); + + test_sort_order(); }
static void test_ownerdata(void)
From: Jacob Czekalla jczekalla@codeweavers.com
--- dlls/comctl32/listview.c | 2 +- dlls/comctl32/tests/listview.c | 2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/dlls/comctl32/listview.c b/dlls/comctl32/listview.c index c82473b6205..0302e3e19a0 100644 --- a/dlls/comctl32/listview.c +++ b/dlls/comctl32/listview.c @@ -9396,7 +9396,7 @@ static BOOL LISTVIEW_SortItems(LISTVIEW_INFO *infoPtr, PFNLVCOMPARE pfnCompare, if (infoPtr->nFocusedItem >= 0) focusedItem = DPA_GetPtr(infoPtr->hdpaItems, infoPtr->nFocusedItem);
- context.items = hdpaItems; + context.items = infoPtr->hdpaItems; context.compare_func = pfnCompare; context.lParam = lParamSort; if (IsEx) diff --git a/dlls/comctl32/tests/listview.c b/dlls/comctl32/tests/listview.c index 78751f3c720..3591b7157ae 100644 --- a/dlls/comctl32/tests/listview.c +++ b/dlls/comctl32/tests/listview.c @@ -3100,7 +3100,7 @@ static void test_sort_order(void) prev_value = 0; }
- todo_wine ok(!prev_value, "ListView not sorted correctly.\n"); + ok(!prev_value, "ListView not sorted correctly.\n");
DestroyWindow(hwndListView); }
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=147415
Your paranoid android.
=== debian11b (64 bit WoW report) ===
Report validation errors: dxgi:dxgi has unaccounted for todo messages dxgi:dxgi has unaccounted for skip messages The report seems to have been truncated
It builds on my linux computer 32-bit. I am not sure what's causing this build to fail.
On Mon Jul 29 17:35:31 2024 +0000, Jacob Czekalla wrote:
It builds on my linux computer 32-bit. I am not sure what's causing this build to fail.
It fails only for 64bit (with a warning that is treated as error. Reason is the return value being casted, but not used by the macro. I'd recommend just using SendMessageA directly and avoiding the macro.
-
Fabian Maurer (＠DarkShadow44) -
Jacob Czekalla
-
Jacob Czekalla (＠JacobCzekalla)
-
Marvin