Merge lp:~mterry/unity8/fix-wakelocks into lp:unity8
| Status: | Superseded | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proposed branch: | lp:~mterry/unity8/fix-wakelocks | ||||
| Merge into: | lp:unity8 | ||||
| Prerequisite: | lp:~dandrader/unity8/surfaceItemFillMode | ||||
| Diff against target: |
216 lines (+61/-20) 8 files modified
qml/Stages/PhoneStage.qml (+6/-4) qml/Stages/TabletStage.qml (+6/-4) tests/mocks/Unity/Application/ApplicationInfo.cpp (+16/-0) tests/mocks/Unity/Application/ApplicationInfo.h (+4/-0) tests/mocks/Unity/Application/ApplicationManager.cpp (+2/-0) tests/mocks/Unity/Application/ApplicationManager.h (+1/-1) tests/plugins/Unity/Launcher/launchermodeltest.cpp (+2/-0) tests/qmltests/tst_Shell.qml (+24/-11) |
||||
| To merge this branch: | bzr merge lp:~mterry/unity8/fix-wakelocks | ||||
| Related bugs: |
|
| Reviewer | Review Type | Date Requested | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Daniel d'Andrada (community) | 2015-12-03 | Approve on 2015-12-04 | |
| PS Jenkins bot | continuous-integration | 2015-12-03 | Needs Fixing on 2015-12-03 |
|
Review via email:
|
|||
This proposal supersedes a proposal from 2015-12-03.
This proposal has been superseded by a proposal from 2015-12-07.
Commit Message
Let qtmir know which apps are exempt from the lifecycle management.
This way, it can manage its own wakelocks better (and stop preventing the system from deep sleeping).
Description of the Change
Let qtmir know which apps are exempt from the lifecycle management, so it can manage its own wakelocks better (and stop preventing the system from deep sleeping).
* Are there any related MPs required for this MP to build/function as expected? Please list.
https:/
https:/
* Did you perform an exploratory manual test run of your code change and any related functionality?
Working on it
* Did you make sure that your branch does not contain spurious tags?
Yes
* If you changed the packaging (debian), did you subscribe the ubuntu-unity team to this MP?
I'm on that team
* If you changed the UI, has there been a design review?
NA
| Daniel d'Andrada (dandrader) wrote : | # |
In test_lifecycleP
I don't see the point in changing app2 from dialer-app to gallery-app
| Daniel d'Andrada (dandrader) wrote : | # |
Likewise in test_lifecycleP
| Michael Terry (mterry) wrote : | # |
> I don't see the point in changing app2 from dialer-app to gallery-app
I realized when making this change that the test was flawed. dialer-app is a sidestage app, so in Tablet mode, it wouldn't actually trigger a Suspend for the main stage app anyway! :(
So I switched to two main stage apps.
| PS Jenkins bot (ps-jenkins) wrote : | # |
FAILED: Continuous integration, rev:2079
http://
Executed test runs:
FAILURE: http://
FAILURE: http://
FAILURE: http://
FAILURE: http://
FAILURE: http://
FAILURE: http://
FAILURE: http://
FAILURE: http://
FAILURE: http://
FAILURE: http://
Click here to trigger a rebuild:
http://
| Daniel d'Andrada (dandrader) wrote : | # |
On 03/12/2015 18:17, Michael Terry wrote:
>> I don't see the point in changing app2 from dialer-app to gallery-app
> I realized when making this change that the test was flawed. dialer-app is a sidestage app, so in Tablet mode, it wouldn't actually trigger a Suspend for the main stage app anyway! :(
>
> So I switched to two main stage apps.
So worth adding a check in the test that ensures both apps are in the
main stage
| Michael Terry (mterry) wrote : | # |
> So worth adding a check in the test that ensures both apps are in the
> main stage
I could, but that'd be a bit redundant with this check:
compare(
Which is what we're really interested in. The test was poor before, because the checked requested state was the same as the running state, and so it would need to look for secondary characteristics to confirm the expected state but didn't.
But now that we compare for the suspended state, I don't think it's necessary to add further checks. But they'd be harmless to add if you like.
| Daniel d'Andrada (dandrader) wrote : | # |
Otherwise code looks ok. Didn't test yet.
| Michael Terry (mterry) wrote : | # |
I've updated the tests to have more comments and sanity checking.
- 2080. By Michael Terry on 2015-12-03
-
Add more comments and sanity checking to the exempt tests
| PS Jenkins bot (ps-jenkins) wrote : | # |
FAILED: Continuous integration, rev:2080
http://
Executed test runs:
FAILURE: http://
FAILURE: http://
FAILURE: http://
FAILURE: http://
FAILURE: http://
FAILURE: http://
FAILURE: http://
FAILURE: http://
FAILURE: http://
FAILURE: http://
Click here to trigger a rebuild:
http://

FAILED: Continuous integration, rev:2078 jenkins. qa.ubuntu. com/job/ unity8- ci/6880/ jenkins. qa.ubuntu. com/job/ generic- deb-autopilot- vivid-touch/ 5590/console jenkins. qa.ubuntu. com/job/ generic- deb-autopilot- xenial- touch/295/ console jenkins. qa.ubuntu. com/job/ unity-phablet- qmluitests- vivid/1591/ console jenkins. qa.ubuntu. com/job/ unity8- qmluitest- xenial- amd64/294/ console jenkins. qa.ubuntu. com/job/ unity8- vivid-amd64- ci/1486/ console jenkins. qa.ubuntu. com/job/ unity8- vivid-i386- ci/1486/ console jenkins. qa.ubuntu. com/job/ unity8- xenial- amd64-ci/ 293/console jenkins. qa.ubuntu. com/job/ unity8- xenial- i386-ci/ 292/console jenkins. qa.ubuntu. com/job/ generic- mediumtests- builder- vivid-armhf/ 5604/console jenkins. qa.ubuntu. com/job/ generic- mediumtests- builder- xenial- armhf/294/ console
http://
Executed test runs:
FAILURE: http://
FAILURE: http://
FAILURE: http://
FAILURE: http://
FAILURE: http://
FAILURE: http://
FAILURE: http://
FAILURE: http://
FAILURE: http://
FAILURE: http://
Click here to trigger a rebuild: s-jenkins. ubuntu- ci:8080/ job/unity8- ci/6880/ rebuild
http://