Summary:
For example, the widget type of elm_button was "Elm_Button".
But, the object which is created by elm_button_add() will
return its widget type "Efl.Ui.Button_Legacy".
It is not legacy name. It should be fixed to return "Elm_Button".
I don't know when but eolian start to make class name with ".".
So, it should be converted to "_" for all widgets.
@fix
Test Plan:
All test cases are included in this patch.
Run "make check"
Reviewers: raster, cedric, jpeg, taxi2se
Reviewed By: cedric
Subscribers: taxi2se, woohyun
Differential Revision: https://phab.enlightenment.org/D5782
Signed-off-by: Cedric Bail <cedric@osg.samsung.com>
The Efl.Access.Attribute is using key and value.
The value could be NULL. If the value is NULL, then following error occurs.
*error:
arguments to dbus_message_iter_append_basic() were incorrect,
assertion "_dbus_check_is_valid_utf8 (*string_p)" failed
in file ../../dbus/dbus-message.c line 2712.
This is normally a bug in some application using the D-Bus library.
Array or variant type requires that type string be written, but end_dict_entry
was written.
The overall signature expected here was 'a{ss}' and we are on byte 3 of that
signature.
Summary:
For now, how to check whether a widget is legacy or not
is to check flags in private data or static flag, which is set
during elm_legacy_add.
If Efl.Ui.Legacy interface is added, it can be easilly checked
by efl_isa(obj, EFL_UI_LEGACY_INTERFACE)
Reviewers: woohyun, jpeg, cedric, Jaehyun_Cho
Subscribers: conr2d, cedric, jpeg
Differential Revision: https://phab.enlightenment.org/D5748
Following @taxi2se's recommendation. This is indeed a focus method, and
Widget already inherits from Focus.Object.
Ping @bu5hm4n who probably wants to adapt this further.
Ref T5363
This was proposed by Dave on the ML, I think it makes sense. Right now
the enum is just like the boolean, feature-wise, but it makes more sense
semantically (mode is not a bool) and allows for future extension (eg.
only apply orientation update for landscape vs. portrait modes).
There is absolutely zero testing for this in our existing codebase. Yay.
Summary:
focus_user and focus_object are similar classes. by merging them into
one mixin, we can maintain consistency.
Test Plan: make check
Reviewers: bu5hm4n
Subscribers: cedric, Jaehyun_Cho, woohyun, jpeg
Differential Revision: https://phab.enlightenment.org/D5734
This fixes some of the warnings generated by calling functions on NULL
objects. One of the main remaining points is to avoid unwanted warnings
on non-existing parts.
Ref T6326
Mike Blumenkrantz
Youngbok Shin
Shinwoo Kim
Sungtaek Hong
Jean-Philippe Andre
Yeongjong Lee
Amitesh Singh