[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       wine-devel
Subject:    Re: user32: Add a test for GetClassInfo, make it pass under Wine.
From:       Dmitry Timoshkov <dmitry () codeweavers ! com>
Date:       2010-07-29 7:55:05
Message-ID: 20100729165505.9f6cad2e.dmitry () codeweavers ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Paul Vriens <paul.vriens.wine@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 07/29/2010 08:55 AM, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> > +    SetLastError(0xdeadbeef);
> > +    ret = GetClassInfoEx(0, "static", NULL);
> 
> Why not the explicit A-function? I see there is already an existing call 
> in the current tests, but still.

An API without a suffix is A by default.

> > +    ok(!ret, "GetClassInfoEx() should fail\n");
> > +    ok(GetLastError() == ERROR_NOACCESS, "expected ERROR_NOACCESS, got %d\n", GetLastError());
> > +
> > +    SetLastError(0xdeadbeef);
> > +    ret = GetClassInfoExW(0, staticW, NULL);
> > +    ok(!ret, "GetClassInfoExW() should fail\n");
> > +    ok(GetLastError() == ERROR_NOACCESS ||
> > +       GetLastError() == ERROR_CALL_NOT_IMPLEMENTED, /* win9x */
> 
> Wouldn't broken() be more appropriate?

Probably, but I'd argue that returning ERROR_CALL_NOT_IMPLEMENTED differs
from returning actually wrong error code.

-- 
Dmitry.


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]