[PATCH v2 resend 3/6] comctl32/listview: Send LVN_ODSTATECHANGED only for virtual lists.

[Zhiyi Zhang]

On 6/11/22 07:56, Angelo Haller wrote:
> On 10/06/2022 03.13, Zhiyi Zhang wrote:
>>
>> On 5/26/22 04:00, Angelo Haller wrote:
>>> From: Angelo Haller <angelo at szanni.org>
>>>
>>> The LVN_ODSTATECHANGED notification should only be sent to lists
>>> that have LVS_OWNERDATA set.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Angelo Haller <angelo at szanni.org>
>>> ---
>>>   dlls/comctl32/listview.c | 1 +
>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/dlls/comctl32/listview.c b/dlls/comctl32/listview.c
>>> index 72ade724313..318df0a4093 100644
>>> --- a/dlls/comctl32/listview.c
>>> +++ b/dlls/comctl32/listview.c
>>> @@ -8946,6 +8946,7 @@ static VOID LISTVIEW_SetOwnerDataState(LISTVIEW_INFO *infoPtr, INT nFirst, INT n
>>>   {
>>>       NMLVODSTATECHANGE nmlv;
>>>   +    if (!(infoPtr->dwStyle & LVS_OWNERDATA)) return;
>> Make sense. It will be better if you can add a simple test before this patch and remove the todo_wines after the fix.
> Is this strictly necessary? The call site has special handling for:
> infoPtr->dwStyle & LVS_OWNERDATA
>
> We could guard the call to the function at the call site, if that is preferred.
>
> Apart from that I am not sure how to write a test for this. This bug is triggered by creating a non ownerdata list and selecting multiple entries holding shift+ctrl and clicking with the mouse. This will send an LVN_ODSTATECHANGED notification where it is not supposed to (as it is not an ownerdata list).

You can write a test that demonstrate the exact same thing. Create a non onwerdata listview control and test the message sequence doesn't contain LVN_ODSTATECHANGED, which should have a todo_wine
because Wine is currently broken in this case. Then you fix it in the next patch and removes the todo_wine.

As for the mouse emulation, could you do it using only the keyboard? Such as sending VK_DOWN while holding Shift and Ctrl?

>
> I have not found any test examples with mouse emulation. Maybe I missed something.
>
> Or should I open a separate bug report for this line?
>
>>>       if (!item) return;
>>>         ZeroMemory(&nmlv, sizeof(nmlv));
>
>