From: "Rémi Bernon" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] ntoskrnl.exe/tests: Add some HidP_Get*Caps tests. Message-Id: <9d6b422b-3c57-8825-ac64-c5f04d63c1a5@codeweavers.com> Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2021 23:33:58 +0200 In-Reply-To: <25454ec9-a72d-0139-82d2-3d57c76e7344@codeweavers.com> References: <20210604091220.265735-1-rbernon@codeweavers.com> <20210604091220.265735-4-rbernon@codeweavers.com> <6360e559-d4a7-7298-0246-e0919221a543@codeweavers.com> <25454ec9-a72d-0139-82d2-3d57c76e7344@codeweavers.com> On 6/8/21 11:27 PM, Zebediah Figura (she/her) wrote: > On 6/8/21 4:10 PM, Rémi Bernon wrote: >> On 6/8/21 10:59 PM, Zebediah Figura (she/her) wrote: >>>> exp->NumberFeatureDataIndices, "unexpected caps >>>> NumberFeatureDataIndices %d, expected %d\n", >>>> caps->NumberFeatureDataIndices, exp->NumberFeatureDataIndices); >>>> +} >>> >>> These are some *really* long lines, and same with the ones below. >>> >>> I guess it's always nice to see what exactly differs, but maybe it's >>> more worthwhile just to use memcmp()? I don't feel strongly about it, >>> though. >>> >> >> I think memcmp is fine up to the moment where the test breaks. To >> debug the issue it's nice to see what didn't match without having to >> write those long lines yourself (same for debugstr BTW, I'd love to >> have more helpers to dump the various Win32 structs readily available). >> >> And for instance I don't like the report memcmp very much, because it >> doesn't tell you at all what's wrong with HidP_InitializeReportForID. >> >> This only needs to be written once and (hopefully) nobody will have to >> look at it again. But then you can use it to check that both struct >> match and have precise info when they don't. >> >> I would have like to be able to put individual todo_wine to replace >> the additional tests for the partially matching structs, but it was >> not convenient, so instead I'm just going to replace all the checks >> with a single call to these functions when the todo_wine are fixed. > > Yeah, though on the other hand that's one reason it's nice to use memcmp > - either they match or they don't. > > Just a bit of extra 2¢: in DirectShow I ended up using memcmp() to match > AM_MEDIA_TYPE. If a test breaks, which is not infrequently, I > temporarily add strmbase_dump_media_type() to check the difference. > Actually I've considered adding an automatic helper like that to > compare_media_types() everywhere, though it'd be nice to have a > debugstr_* type helper instead so that I don't have to turn on +strmbase > to use it. > > It may be a nice approach in general to structure things like > > static bool compare_some_struct(const SOME_STRUCT *s, const SOME_STRUCT > *expect) > { >    if (!memcmp(s, expect, sizeof(*SOME_STRUCT))) >        return true; >    trace("Expected: %s\n", debugstr_some_struct(expect)); >    trace("Received: %s\n", debugstr_some_struct(s)); > } > > ... > > { >    ok(compare_some_struct(&s, &expect), "Structures didn't match.\n"); > } > I don't have good opinion of trace-ing failures, I find that it quickly gets cut, and in general the traces you were interested it are after the cut. -- Rémi Bernon