[PATCH 0/4] MR233: win32u: Partially move raw input APIs.

[Rémi Bernon (@rbernon)]

On Tue Jun 14 04:03:29 2022 +0000, **** wrote:
> Zebediah Figura replied on the mailing list:
> ```
> On 6/13/22 03:27, Rémi Bernon (@rbernon) wrote:
> > Rémi 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.

-- 
https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/233#note_2013