On Jan 21, 2008 2:47 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > James Hawkins wrote: > > On Jan 21, 2008 2:14 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Dmitry Timoshkov wrote: > >> > >>> "Dmitry Timoshkov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> It's not clear what this test is supposed to show. If the 1st call > >>>> to LoadStringW is supposed to set resourcepointer to not NULL, why > >>>> don't you test it? Then 'if(resourcepointer != NULL)' check and copying > >>>> to copiedstring are not needed. > >>>> > >>>> Also, if the test depends on a later patch to not fail, the test > >>>> should be > >>>> included in the patch. > >>>> > >>> Also, you need to test LoadStringA, to see if it behaves similarly. It > >>> would be > >>> also interesting to test LoadStringA/W with both buffer and buffer > >>> length set > >>> to 0. > >>> > >>> In addition, as I already pointed out you need to inspect Wine source > >>> and fix > >>> the places which will be broken by your fix. > >>> > >>> > >> I tested LoadStringA under Windows XP, and calling it with buflen == 0 > >> does not return a pointer to the resource. In fact LoadStringA seems to > >> behave fairly differently from LoadStringW: in that calling with buffer > >> == NULL causes an access violation instead of just returning 0. > >> > >> > > > > That's why you need to add tests for LoadStringA to Wine's test suite. > > > > > How can I test for an access violation, won't that crash the test suite? > Also, what's the guideline for what functions I need to write tests for > when I send in a patch? I still don't understand why I need to write a > test for LoadStringA since it has no dependence on LoadStringW (the > function I'm patching). >
You could start by reading the code. LoadStringA is a wrapper around LoadStringW. -- James Hawkins
