[PATCH v3 4/6] ntoskrnl.exe/tests: Add some HidP_Get*Caps tests.

[Rémi Bernon]

On 6/8/21 11:35 PM, Zebediah Figura (she/her) wrote:
> On 6/8/21 4:33 PM, Rémi Bernon wrote:
>> On 6/8/21 11:27 PM, Zebediah Figura (she/her) wrote:
>>> On 6/8/21 4:10 PM, Rémi Bernon wrote:
>>>> On 6/8/21 10:59 PM, Zebediah Figura (she/her) wrote:
>>>>>> exp->NumberFeatureDataIndices, "unexpected caps 
>>>>>> NumberFeatureDataIndices %d, expected %d\n", 
>>>>>> caps->NumberFeatureDataIndices, exp->NumberFeatureDataIndices);
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>
>>>>> These are some *really* long lines, and same with the ones below.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess it's always nice to see what exactly differs, but maybe 
>>>>> it's more worthwhile just to use memcmp()? I don't feel strongly 
>>>>> about it, though.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think memcmp is fine up to the moment where the test breaks. To 
>>>> debug the issue it's nice to see what didn't match without having to 
>>>> write those long lines yourself (same for debugstr BTW, I'd love to 
>>>> have more helpers to dump the various Win32 structs readily available).
>>>>
>>>> And for instance I don't like the report memcmp very much, because 
>>>> it doesn't tell you at all what's wrong with 
>>>> HidP_InitializeReportForID.
>>>>
>>>> This only needs to be written once and (hopefully) nobody will have 
>>>> to look at it again. But then you can use it to check that both 
>>>> struct match and have precise info when they don't.
>>>>
>>>> I would have like to be able to put individual todo_wine to replace 
>>>> the additional tests for the partially matching structs, but it was 
>>>> not convenient, so instead I'm just going to replace all the checks 
>>>> with a single call to these functions when the todo_wine are fixed.
>>>
>>> Yeah, though on the other hand that's one reason it's nice to use 
>>> memcmp - either they match or they don't.
>>>
>>> Just a bit of extra 2¢: in DirectShow I ended up using memcmp() to 
>>> match AM_MEDIA_TYPE. If a test breaks, which is not infrequently, I 
>>> temporarily add strmbase_dump_media_type() to check the difference. 
>>> Actually I've considered adding an automatic helper like that to 
>>> compare_media_types() everywhere, though it'd be nice to have a 
>>> debugstr_* type helper instead so that I don't have to turn on 
>>> +strmbase to use it.
>>>
>>> It may be a nice approach in general to structure things like
>>>
>>> static bool compare_some_struct(const SOME_STRUCT *s, const 
>>> SOME_STRUCT *expect)
>>> {
>>>     if (!memcmp(s, expect, sizeof(*SOME_STRUCT)))
>>>         return true;
>>>     trace("Expected: %s\n", debugstr_some_struct(expect));
>>>     trace("Received: %s\n", debugstr_some_struct(s));
>>> }
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> {
>>>     ok(compare_some_struct(&s, &expect), "Structures didn't match.\n");
>>> }
>>>
>>
>> I don't have good opinion of trace-ing failures, I find that it 
>> quickly gets cut, and in general the traces you were interested it are 
>> after the cut.
> 
> Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this; can you please 
> clarify?
> 

Eh sorry for my bad english, I mean that traces are muted after a being 
printed too many times, and it happens too often when I needed the traces.
-- 
Rémi Bernon <rbernon at codeweavers.com>