[PATCH 2/2] d3drm/tests: Add tests for IDirect3DRMObject::Add/DeleteDestroyCallback (v2).

[Aaryaman Vasishta]

On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Stefan Dösinger <stefandoesinger at gmail.com>
wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Hi,
>
> A few questions / suggestions:
>
> *) What happens if you register the same callback with different context
> pointers?
>
It'll call the callback with the respective context pointer passed to it.
I'll add a test for the same.

>
> *) The test already does some testing of the call order. I think you could
> extend it a bit if you store arrays of expected callback functions and
> context pointers in the structure and compare them when the callbacks are
> invoked.
>
In what way would you want me to test the callback order? I.e. how many
callbacks and context pointers to be used and in which order should I add
them?

>
> *) Does DeleteDestroyCallback return an error when no matching callback is
> found?
>
Yes, there's a test added which checks for D3DRMERR_BADVALUE if the
callback pointer passed is NULL. Any other random value (except for a valid
matching callback pointer) e.g. 0xdeadbeef would return the same.

>
> *) The last one is mostly curiosity / a bad feeling: Is there a difference
> between callbacks added with IDirect3DRMObject (and its derived interfaces)
> and IDirect3DRMObject2? I am asking because Object2 is a separate interface
> and might be implemented in a separate object and then aggregated. If
> Microsoft screwed up (they never do that, right? ;-) ) then it'll have its
> own list of added callbacks...
>
That's not tested yet, but it could be the case that Microsoft might be
adding their own internal callbacks for handling of internal objects.

Cheers,
Aaryaman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/attachments/20160407/ba72c583/attachment.html>