[PATCH] user32: Fix error handling in MapWindowPoints, ClientToScreen and ScreenToClient and add tests for them. (try 2)

[Christian Costa]

I don't mind working on this issue or let you do it but it's not worth 
working both on or review very different versions of the patch that are 
not converging.
The fact the patch gets in does not prevent to add further tests 
afterwards. Note that in the version I sent based on your work I grouped 
tests for each of 3 functions
for better readability.


Le 21/10/2012 13:23, Rico Schüller a écrit :
> Well, I just like to add my favorite version for now. It handles only 
> ClientToScreen and ScreenToClient and fixes the return values. It 
> doesn't touch MapWindowPoints and it doesn't check for the comment on 
> msdn. I think those both extra points belong into separate patches. 
> Feedback is welcome.
>
> Cheers
> Rico
>
>
> On 20.10.2012 22:58, Christian Costa wrote:
>> Ok. I'll add it. Thanks!
>>
>> Le 20/10/2012 21:35, Rico Schüller a écrit :
>>> I think we also need a test to prove that "return MapWindowPoints(
>>> hwnd, 0, lppnt, 1 ) != 0;" is wrong. I'd probably split the changes to
>>> ScreenToClient/ClientToScreen and MapWindowPoints, because they are
>>> not necessarily bound together.
>>>
>>> What about something like:
>>> wnd2 = CreateWindow("static", "wnd2", WS_POPUP, 0, 0, 150, 150, NULL,
>>> NULL, NULL, NULL);
>>> ok(wnd2 != NULL, "CreateWindow failed\n");
>>> SetLastError(0xdeadbeef);
>>> p.x = p.y = 0;
>>> ret = ScreenToClient(wnd2, &p);
>>> err = GetLastError();
>>> ok(ret, "ScreenToClient() failed\n");
>>> ok(p.x == 0 && p.y == 0, "Failed got(%d, %d), expected (%d, %d)\n",
>>> p.x, p.y, 0, 0);
>>> ok(err == 0xdeadbeef, "GetLastError failed, got %x, expected %x\n",
>>> err, 0xdeadbeef);
>>>
>>> Also msdn says: "Do not use ScreenToClient when in a mirroring
>>> situation, that is, when changing from left-to-right layout to
>>> right-to-left layout. Instead, use MapWindowPoints. For more
>>> information, see "Window Layout and Mirroring" in Window Features." We
>>> may also check that case. So they may not share the exact same steps.
>