[PATCH v2 2/3] d2d1/tests: Add tests for effect inputs.

[Henri Verbeet]

On Sat, 31 Jul 2021 at 06:25, Ziqing Hui <zhui at codeweavers.com> wrote:
> @@ -9797,6 +9800,60 @@ static void test_effect(BOOL d3d11)
>                      max_inputs, test->max_inputs);
>          }
>
> +        todo_wine
> +        {
> +        input_count = ID2D1Effect_GetInputCount(effect);
> +        ok (input_count == 1 || input_count == 2, "Got unexpected input count %u.\n", input_count);
> +
What determines whether this returns 1 or 2?

As an aside, I'd much prefer putting "todo_wine" before individual
ok() calls over using block-todo_wine.

> +        input_count = (test->max_inputs < 16 ? test->max_inputs : 16);
> +        for (j = 0; j < input_count + off_limit_tests; ++j)
> +        {
What is the meaning of the "off_limit_tests" variable? It's not
obvious to me from the variable name.

> +            hr = ID2D1Effect_SetInputCount(effect, j);
> +            if (j < test->min_inputs || j > test->max_inputs)
> +                ok(hr == E_INVALIDARG, "Got unexpected hr %#x.\n", hr);
> +            else
> +                ok(hr == S_OK, "Got unexpected hr %#x.\n", hr);
> +        }
If these were to fail, it would not be obvious from the failure
message for which input/"j" that was.

> +        ID2D1Effect_SetInput(effect, 0, (ID2D1Image *)bitmap, FALSE);
> +        for (j = 0; j < input_count + off_limit_tests; ++j)
> +        {
> +            image_a = (ID2D1Image *)0xdeadbeef;
> +            if (j >= input_count)
> +                ID2D1Effect_SetInput(effect, j, (ID2D1Image *)bitmap, FALSE);
> +            ID2D1Effect_GetInput(effect, j, &image_a);
> +            if (j == 0)
> +            {
> +                ok(image_a == (ID2D1Image *)bitmap, "Got unexpected image_a %p.\n", image_a);
> +                if (image_a == (ID2D1Image *)bitmap)
> +                    ID2D1Image_Release(image_a);
> +            }
> +            else
> +            {
> +                ok(image_a == NULL, "Got unexpected image_a %p.\n", image_a);
> +            }
> +        }
It may end up being nicer to use two separate loops for this.