ole32: Accept STG_E_UNIMPLEMENTEDFUNCTION when ILockBytes implementation doesn't support locking.

[Nikolay Sivov]

On 04.07.2015 7:40, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> Nikolay Sivov <bunglehead at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>        /* If the ILockBytes doesn't support locking that's ok. */
>>> -    if (hr == STG_E_INVALIDFUNCTION) return S_OK;
>>> +    if (hr == STG_E_INVALIDFUNCTION || hr == STG_E_UNIMPLEMENTEDFUNCTION) return S_OK;
>>>        else if (FAILED(hr)) return hr;
>>>
>>>        hr = S_OK;
>>>
>>
>> It looks like StorageImpl_LockRegionSync should be fixed instead to
>> filter some error codes. Could you add a test with external ILockBytes
>> implementation that does that?
>
> Thers is no any comment or a test case about accepting ILockByte failures
> neither in the original commit 65887802c502c4eeeb3fc905990e3e2f4548a482,
> nor in the next one 1645f7b9e30e01bc92a8bfd1febe76d4856e046e which limits
> accepted error codes to STG_E_INVALIDFUNCTION.

Well it doesn't matter, we don't have tests for many things, it doesn't 
mean we shouldn't ever think about having one.

>
> Besides, my patch fixes a regression caused by IStorage locking rewrite,
> and should be pretty obvious without a test case. With this regression
> fixed an application that I have here can open its database files again
> as it was before.
>
> If you really insist on a test case, please ask Vincent, he is the original
> authour of this implementation.
>

He's not the one sending this, so why should he be writing tests for 
your changes?