[PATCH 05/10] comctl32/tests: Add tests for BCM_SETSPLITINFO and BCM_GETSPLITINFO

[Nikolay Sivov]

On 4/3/19 1:12 PM, Gabriel Ivăncescu wrote:
> On 4/3/19 12:48 PM, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
>> On 4/1/19 3:19 PM, Gabriel Ivăncescu wrote:
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Gabriel Ivăncescu <gabrielopcode at gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>>   dlls/comctl32/tests/button.c | 210 
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>   1 file changed, 210 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/dlls/comctl32/tests/button.c 
>>> b/dlls/comctl32/tests/button.c
>>> index fef3de5..abbee64 100644
>>> --- a/dlls/comctl32/tests/button.c
>>> +++ b/dlls/comctl32/tests/button.c
>>> @@ -1427,6 +1427,213 @@ static void register_parent_class(void)
>>>       RegisterClassA(&cls);
>>>   }
>>> +static void test_bcm_splitinfo(HWND hwnd)
>>> +{
>>> +    UINT button = GetWindowLongA(hwnd, GWL_STYLE) & BS_TYPEMASK;
>>> +    int glyph_size = GetSystemMetrics(SM_CYMENUCHECK);
>>> +    int border_w = GetSystemMetrics(SM_CXEDGE) * 2;
>>> +    BUTTON_SPLITINFO info, dummy;
>>> +    HIMAGELIST img;
>>> +    BOOL ret;
>>> +
>>> +    /* Split buttons and their messages are not available pre-Vista */
>>> +    if (broken(LOBYTE(LOWORD(GetVersion())) < 6)) return;
>>
>> Version check is easy to avoid here, do a valid BCM_GETSPLITINFO and 
>> win_skip() on failure, broken() is not meant for this.
>>
>
> Ok, but I should probably only win_skip once since it's in a loop, 
> right? Or have a skip message for each button?

Depends on how much spam it generates, but sure, you can use a static 
flag to print it once.

>
>>
>> I think such failure path in unnecessary, if img is NULL we'll just 
>> get a bunch of additional test failures.
>>
>
> Noted.