Adding more Variant types

[Guiguiprim]

Suggestion

Hey,

Using windows-rs 0.52.0 I had my own Variant helper. In windows-rs 0.54.0 I see that windows::core::Variant was added, which is nice. With that change, all Windows::Win32::System::Variant::VARIANT* where removed (which completely breaks my Variant implementation).

I would be happy to migrate to windows::core::Variant but it is missing types support that I used:

• fn null() -> Variant to construct a VT_NULL variant
• TryFrom<&[String]> for Variant to construct VT_ARRAY_BSTR variant
• TryFrom<&[u8]> for Variant to construct VT_ARRAY_UI1 variant

If I can, I'm going to have a try at it.

[kennykerr]

Happy to review additions. I assume you mean VT_ARRAY | VT_BSTR and so on.

[hcldan]

We also need VT_ARRAY and VT_BSTR support.

[kennykerr]

VT_BSTR is already supported. It's really just VT_ARRAY that I hope to get to soon.

[hcldan]

Excellent!

[kennykerr]

VARIANT support is quite unwieldy and I haven't yet found a practical way to split it out from the windows-core crate, but I'm working on finding such a solution. #3151 just reduces the boilerplate code by using a macro to generate much of it, but the next step is to pull it into its own standalone windows-variant crate that the other windows-rs crates can depend on as needed.

[seritools]

To add to this request - I have to access VT_CLSID (GUID) and VT_LPWSTR variants, currently falling back to .as_raw() for those.

[PaulDance]

@kennykerr Did you find time to look at this again? If not, would you be willing to take a look at a redux of my previous PR? The addition of the desired APIs should not exactly need to come necessarily after the wanted refactor, but can be achieved in parallel, no?

[kennykerr]

Sorry I've not had any time to return to this yet. I did have a quick look at your old PR and I'm not sure that's the right sustainable approach in general. We probably need a generic SAFEARRAY and then provide convertibility between VARIANT and SAFEARRAY but I've not given it much more thought yet.

[PaulDance]

But then again, this and that could be done separately, no? For example, implementing the variants first would mean having TryFrom<&[T]> for VARIANT implementations, then adding SAFEARRAY would mean a TryFrom<SAFEARRAY> for VARIANT implementation and the TryFrom<&[T]> for VARIANTs would simply be refactored to use the TryFrom<&[T]> for SAFEARRAY instead without having to change the API, right?

[kennykerr]

I'd just rather not rush into a solution. If you're blocked, I'd suggest you write a helper function to cover the missing functionality for the time being.

[kennykerr]

I finally settled on moving the VARIANT support into the windows crate. It's just too complex and costly to carry around in the windows-core crate. I'd considered a dedicated crate but so much of what makes VARIANT interesting lives in the windows crate so I couldn't really justify the additional complexity of a dedicated crate. In so far as it is practical to add additional conversion support in the new extension, we can certainly talk about that. #3282