Merge lp:~gerboland/unity8/sidestage-handle-input-area into lp:unity8

Proposed by Gerry Boland
Status: Merged
Approved by: Albert Astals Cid
Approved revision: 675
Merged at revision: 701
Proposed branch: lp:~gerboland/unity8/sidestage-handle-input-area
Merge into: lp:unity8
Diff against target: 13 lines (+5/-0)
1 file modified
qml/SideStage/SideStage.qml (+5/-0)
To merge this branch: bzr merge lp:~gerboland/unity8/sidestage-handle-input-area
Reviewer Review Type Date Requested Status
Albert Astals Cid (community) Approve
PS Jenkins bot (community) continuous-integration Needs Fixing
Review via email: mp+204486@code.launchpad.net

Commit message

Add InputFilterArea to sidestage handle to block input to mainstage app while moving sidestage

Description of the change

Add InputFilterArea to sidestage handle to block input to mainstage app while moving sidestage

• Are there any related MPs required for this MP to build/function as expected? Please list.
No
• Did you perform an exploratory manual test run of your code change and any related functionality?
Yes
• If you changed the packaging (debian), did you subscribe the ubuntu-unity team to this MP?
No

To post a comment you must log in.
Revision history for this message
Albert Astals Cid (aacid) wrote :

Can we have a test for this?

review: Needs Fixing
Revision history for this message
PS Jenkins bot (ps-jenkins) wrote :

FAILED: Continuous integration, rev:675
http://jenkins.qa.ubuntu.com/job/unity8-ci/2208/
Executed test runs:
    UNSTABLE: http://jenkins.qa.ubuntu.com/job/generic-mediumtests-trusty/2839
    SUCCESS: http://jenkins.qa.ubuntu.com/job/generic-mediumtests-trusty-touch/2587
    SUCCESS: http://jenkins.qa.ubuntu.com/job/unity-phablet-qmluitests-trusty/1081
    SUCCESS: http://jenkins.qa.ubuntu.com/job/unity8-trusty-amd64-ci/730
    SUCCESS: http://jenkins.qa.ubuntu.com/job/unity8-trusty-armhf-ci/732
        deb: http://jenkins.qa.ubuntu.com/job/unity8-trusty-armhf-ci/732/artifact/work/output/*zip*/output.zip
    SUCCESS: http://jenkins.qa.ubuntu.com/job/unity8-trusty-i386-ci/730
    UNSTABLE: http://jenkins.qa.ubuntu.com/job/autopilot-testrunner-otto-trusty/2487
    SUCCESS: http://jenkins.qa.ubuntu.com/job/generic-mediumtests-builder-trusty-amd64/2841
        deb: http://jenkins.qa.ubuntu.com/job/generic-mediumtests-builder-trusty-amd64/2841/artifact/work/output/*zip*/output.zip
    SUCCESS: http://jenkins.qa.ubuntu.com/job/generic-mediumtests-builder-trusty-armhf/2588
        deb: http://jenkins.qa.ubuntu.com/job/generic-mediumtests-builder-trusty-armhf/2588/artifact/work/output/*zip*/output.zip
    SUCCESS: http://jenkins.qa.ubuntu.com/job/generic-mediumtests-runner-mako/5015
    SUCCESS: http://s-jenkins.ubuntu-ci:8080/job/touch-flash-device/3561

Click here to trigger a rebuild:
http://s-jenkins.ubuntu-ci:8080/job/unity8-ci/2208/rebuild

review: Needs Fixing (continuous-integration)
Revision history for this message
Gerry Boland (gerboland) wrote :

> Can we have a test for this?
We have no automated test infrastructure for testing the use of InputAreas in place.

Revision history for this message
Albert Astals Cid (aacid) wrote :

Can't we have a qml test that has an Item with a MouseArea and then a SideStage on top and check that the Item's MouseArea doesn't get input?

Revision history for this message
Gerry Boland (gerboland) wrote :

Hmm, I had thought for Mir testing that input events were injected into the Qt event loop (so InputArea would not be interacted with), but in digging it looks like autopilot injects raw uevents. Ok, will look into test

Revision history for this message
Gerry Boland (gerboland) wrote :

> Hmm, I had thought for Mir testing that input events were injected into the Qt
> event loop (so InputArea would not be interacted with), but in digging it
> looks like autopilot injects raw uevents. Ok, will look into test
I'm talking rubbish. Shell always gets all events from uevent. What's important in this case is that it prevents those events being passed through to the focused application (which is what the InputArea specifies). So to test this, I would need to write autopilot test to launch an application, and have that communicate to the test somehow that it does/doesn't receives events. That'll be half a days work, for something that we'll throw away once we use a QML compositor.

Revision history for this message
Albert Astals Cid (aacid) wrote :

Why will we throw away the test? Isn't it important that we still test this bug is not present when using the QML compositor?

Revision history for this message
Albert Astals Cid (aacid) wrote :

Ok, Gerry convinced me on IRC that this was not worth a test.

Revision history for this message
Albert Astals Cid (aacid) wrote :

 * Did you perform an exploratory manual test run of the code change and any related functionality?
Yes, fixes the problem

 * Did CI run pass? If not, please explain why.
No, failed in unrelated network tests

review: Approve

Preview Diff

[H/L] Next/Prev Comment, [J/K] Next/Prev File, [N/P] Next/Prev Hunk
1=== modified file 'qml/SideStage/SideStage.qml'
2--- qml/SideStage/SideStage.qml 2013-09-04 13:42:27 +0000
3+++ qml/SideStage/SideStage.qml 2014-02-03 13:32:35 +0000
4@@ -65,4 +65,9 @@
5 Behavior on width { NumberAnimation { easing.type: Easing.OutQuart} }
6 z: -1
7 }
8+
9+ InputFilterArea {
10+ anchors.fill: handle
11+ blockInput: visible
12+ }
13 }

Subscribers

People subscribed via source and target branches