Aric Stewart wrote:
dlls/comctl32/listview.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- 1 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
Hi, Aric.
I don't think it's a right way:
---
+ if (infoPtr->nItemCount > 0) + { + LISTVIEW_GetItemBox(infoPtr, 0, &rcBox); + if (wWidth == 0xffff) + wWidth = infoPtr->rcList.right - infoPtr->rcList.left; + + row_count = wWidth / (rcBox.right - rcBox.left); + if (row_count == 0) + { + row_count = 1; + wWidth = rcBox.right - rcBox.left; + } + rows = infoPtr->nItemCount / row_count; + if (rows == 0) + rows = 1; + + wHeight = (rcBox.bottom - rcBox.top) * rows; + }
---
You don't respect item spacing here while native does: just tested with ControlSpy and it does return rectangle with item spacing - item aren't placed close to each other.
I think you should use a logic we use to position items - place to row until it wraps to next etc. The difference is that if width is greater by a value less then itemwidth we should return a minimal rectangle here.
Using LISTVIEW_GetItemBox(infoPtr, 0, &rcBox) for 0 item assuming it's the same for the rest isn't correct - box depends on label so, it could differ.
Also this is unsafe: --- + row_count = wWidth / (rcBox.right - rcBox.left); ---
Could add some tests for that? Not so strict maybe, but to check that approx. rectangle is wider then item placed close.
-
Nikolay Sivov