[1/2] comctl32/listview: Additional tests for LVM_GETSUBITEMRECT
Nikolay Sivov
bunglehead at gmail.com
Wed Apr 22 13:45:15 CDT 2009
Paul Vriens wrote:
> Nikolay Sivov wrote:
>> Changelog:
>> - Additional tests for LVM_GETSUBITEMRECT
>>
>>> From 2f2cb8e54b81ff6be7229b7931945a3bb76f4bde Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Nikolay Sivov <bunglehead at gmail.com>
>> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:05:56 -0400
>> Subject: Additional tests for LVM_GETSUBITEMRECT
>>
>> ---
>> dlls/comctl32/tests/listview.c | 41
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/dlls/comctl32/tests/listview.c
>> b/dlls/comctl32/tests/listview.c
>> index 6f205fd..fba7a01 100644
>> --- a/dlls/comctl32/tests/listview.c
>> +++ b/dlls/comctl32/tests/listview.c
>> @@ -847,6 +847,7 @@ static void test_create(void)
>> LONG_PTR ret;
>> LONG r;
>> LVCOLUMNA col;
>> + RECT rect;
>> WNDCLASSEX cls;
>> cls.cbSize = sizeof(WNDCLASSEX);
>> ok(GetClassInfoEx(GetModuleHandle(NULL), "SysListView32", &cls),
>> "GetClassInfoEx failed\n");
>> @@ -976,6 +977,31 @@ static void test_create(void)
>> ok(IsWindow(hHeader), "Header should be created\n");
>> ok(hHeader == GetDlgItem(hList, 0), "Expected header as dialog
>> item\n");
>> DestroyWindow(hList);
>> +
>> + /* requesting header info with LVM_GETSUBITEMRECT doesn't create
>> it */
>> + hList = CreateWindow("SysListView32", "Test", LVS_REPORT, 0, 0,
>> 100, 100, NULL, NULL,
>> + GetModuleHandle(NULL), 0);
>> + ok(!IsWindow(hHeader), "Header shouldn't be created\n");
>> + ok(NULL == GetDlgItem(hList, 0), "NULL dialog item expected\n");
>> +
>> + rect.left = LVIR_BOUNDS;
>> + rect.top = 1;
>> + rect.right = rect.bottom = -10;
>> + r = SendMessage(hList, LVM_GETSUBITEMRECT, -1, (LPARAM)&rect);
>> +todo_wine
>> + ok(r != 0, "Expected not-null LRESULT\n");
>> +
>> + hHeader = (HWND)SendMessage(hList, LVM_GETHEADER, 0, 0);
>> + ok(!IsWindow(hHeader), "Header shouldn't be created\n");
>> + ok(NULL == GetDlgItem(hList, 0), "NULL dialog item expected\n");
>> +
>> + expect(0, rect.left);
>> +todo_wine {
>> + expect(0, rect.right);
>> + expect(0, rect.top);
>
> These first 3 seems to fail on everything from W2K downwards. Could
> you have a look?
>
And on one of Vista machines too. So it's only stable for XP and 2k3,
maybe it's better to remove them completely?
More information about the wine-devel
mailing list