Nikolay Sivov wrote:
The very first one was better (when you fixed only division by zero).
Now you're changing path earlier:
---
+ if(rows <= 0) rows = 1;
---
There's no tests currently for that (<=0 isn't tested), could you add them (to test_setrows() I suppose)?
What's write in this test?
Maybe something like this:
RECT rc;
int rows;
memset(&rc, 0xCC, sizeof(rc));
SendMessageA(hToolbar, TB_SETROWS, MAKEWPARAM(0, TRUE), (LPARAM) &rc);
rows = SendMessageA(hToolbar, TB_GETROWS, 0, 0);
ok(rows == 1, "Unexpected number of rows %d (expected %d)\n", rows, 1);
memset(&rc, 0xCC, sizeof(rc));
SendMessageA(hToolbar, TB_SETROWS, MAKEWPARAM(-1, TRUE), (LPARAM) &rc);
rows = SendMessageA(hToolbar, TB_GETROWS, 0, 0);
ok(rows == 1, "Unexpected number of rows %d (expected %d)\n", rows, 1);
