[PATCH 0/4] MR233: win32u: Partially move raw input APIs.
Rémi Bernon (@rbernon)
wine at gitlab.winehq.org
Tue Jun 14 00:04:59 CDT 2022
On Tue Jun 14 04:03:29 2022 +0000, **** wrote:
> Zebediah Figura replied on the mailing list:
> On 6/13/22 03:27, RÃ©mi Bernon (@rbernon) wrote:
> > RÃ©mi Bernon (@rbernon) commented about dlls/user32/tests/input.c:
> >> ret = GetRawInputData((HRAWINPUT)lparam, RID_INPUT, &raw,
> &raw_size, sizeof(RAWINPUTHEADER));
> >> ok(ret > 0 && ret != (UINT)-1, "GetRawInputData failed\n");
> >> ok(raw.header.dwType == RIM_TYPEMOUSE, "Unexpected rawinput
> type: %lu\n", raw.header.dwType);
> >> + ok(raw.header.dwSize == raw_size, "Expected size %u, got
> %lu\n", raw_size, raw.header.dwSize);
> >> + todo_wine_if (wparam)
> >> + ok(raw.header.wParam == wparam, "Expected wparam %Iu,
> got %Iu\n", wparam, raw.header.wParam);
> > We don't usually indent `todo_wine_(if)`, do we?
> Some people do. Semantically "todo_wine" is similar to "if (x)" [and
> "todo_wine_if" is similar to "if"] so I indent it accordingly. This also
> has the advantage that the line will be touched again when the todo_wine
> is removed, which can make it easy to spot what commit fixed a test in
> `git blame` (where applicable).
Sure, it's a matter of taste, but it didn't seem to me that we _usually_ indent it. So that for instance, removing the todo doesn't need to touch the test line itself.
More information about the wine-devel