From: "Zebediah Figura (she/her)" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] ntoskrnl.exe/tests: Add some HidP_Get*Caps tests. Message-Id: Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2021 16:35:33 -0500 In-Reply-To: <9d6b422b-3c57-8825-ac64-c5f04d63c1a5@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> <9d6b422b-3c57-8825-ac64-c5f04d63c1a5@codeweavers.com> On 6/8/21 4:33 PM, Rémi Bernon wrote: > 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. Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this; can you please clarify?