Merge lp:~mterry/unity8/unlock-sim-after-wizard into lp:unity8
| Status: | Merged |
|---|---|
| Approved by: | Michał Sawicz on 2015-03-11 |
| Approved revision: | 1639 |
| Merged at revision: | 1666 |
| Proposed branch: | lp:~mterry/unity8/unlock-sim-after-wizard |
| Merge into: | lp:unity8 |
| Prerequisite: | lp:~dandrader/unity8/unifyShellTests |
| Diff against target: |
113 lines (+34/-6) 4 files modified
qml/Greeter/Greeter.qml (+0/-5) qml/Shell.qml (+11/-0) qml/Wizard/Wizard.qml (+6/-1) tests/qmltests/tst_Shell.qml (+17/-0) |
| To merge this branch: | bzr merge lp:~mterry/unity8/unlock-sim-after-wizard |
| Related bugs: |
| Reviewer | Review Type | Date Requested | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Michał Sawicz | functional | Approve on 2015-03-11 | |
| Daniel d'Andrada (community) | code | 2015-03-03 | Approve on 2015-03-11 |
| PS Jenkins bot | continuous-integration | 2015-03-03 | Needs Fixing on 2015-03-10 |
|
Review via email:
|
|||
This proposal supersedes a proposal from 2015-02-25.
Commit Message
Only call unlockAllModems once the wizard is done. (LP: #1425161)
Description of the Change
Only call unlockAllModems once the wizard is done. (LP: #1425161)
This is only a problem in vivid because in RTM, the shell isn't running when the wizard is.
I never noticed this when testing because I'm a silly American.
== Checklist ==
* 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
* 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?
NA
* If you changed the UI, has there been a design review?
NA
| Daniel d'Andrada (dandrader) wrote : | # |
Would you mind rebasing it on top of lp:~dandrader/unity8/unifyShellTests?
With unifyShellTests, tests functions have to load the shell explicitly using the loadShell(
Besides, the two conflict anyway, so either of the MPs would have to do that in any case.
| Michael Terry (mterry) wrote : | # |
OK, rebased on unifyShellTests.
| PS Jenkins bot (ps-jenkins) wrote : | # |
FAILED: Continuous integration, rev:1637
http://
Executed test runs:
UNSTABLE: http://
SUCCESS: http://
SUCCESS: http://
SUCCESS: http://
UNSTABLE: http://
SUCCESS: http://
deb: http://
SUCCESS: http://
Click here to trigger a rebuild:
http://
| Daniel d'Andrada (dandrader) wrote : | # |
"""
62 - readonly property alias active: loader.active
63 + readonly property bool active: loader.active
"""
Why is that needed?
| Michael Terry (mterry) wrote : | # |
> Why is that needed?
Because the loader's active property was emitting a changed signal during object creation as an alias. Having it cached as a property made it only emit a changed signal when it actually did change.
I figured it was some quirk of qml that I didn't understand. But it seemed like a harmless enough change.
- 1638. By Michael Terry on 2015-03-10
-
Merge from unifyShellTests
| PS Jenkins bot (ps-jenkins) wrote : | # |
FAILED: Continuous integration, rev:1638
http://
Executed test runs:
UNSTABLE: http://
UNSTABLE: http://
SUCCESS: http://
SUCCESS: http://
UNSTABLE: http://
SUCCESS: http://
deb: http://
SUCCESS: http://
Click here to trigger a rebuild:
http://
| Daniel d'Andrada (dandrader) wrote : | # |
> > Why is that needed?
>
> Because the loader's active property was emitting a changed signal during
> object creation as an alias. Having it cached as a property made it only emit
> a changed signal when it actually did change.
>
> I figured it was some quirk of qml that I didn't understand. But it seemed
> like a harmless enough change.
That's really odd. Certainly deserves a comment in the code. Specially if your code will misbehave in case it's changed to an alias back again.
- 1639. By Michael Terry on 2015-03-11
-
Add some comments on why we cache the 'active' bool instead of using an alias
| Michael Terry (mterry) wrote : | # |
Added comment to explain
| Daniel d'Andrada (dandrader) wrote : | # |
Code looks ok, but I can't test if it fixes the bug as I don't have a spare SIM card (particularly one that has a PIN code) to try it.

FAILED: Continuous integration, rev:1636 jenkins. qa.ubuntu. com/job/ unity8- ci/5362/ jenkins. qa.ubuntu. com/job/ generic- deb-autopilot- vivid-touch/ 1540 jenkins. qa.ubuntu. com/job/ unity-phablet- qmluitests- vivid/526 jenkins. qa.ubuntu. com/job/ unity8- vivid-amd64- ci/527 jenkins. qa.ubuntu. com/job/ unity8- vivid-i386- ci/527 jenkins. qa.ubuntu. com/job/ generic- deb-autopilot- runner- vivid-mako/ 1370 jenkins. qa.ubuntu. com/job/ generic- mediumtests- builder- vivid-armhf/ 1538 jenkins. qa.ubuntu. com/job/ generic- mediumtests- builder- vivid-armhf/ 1538/artifact/ work/output/ *zip*/output. zip s-jenkins. ubuntu- ci:8080/ job/touch- flash-device/ 18358
http://
Executed test runs:
UNSTABLE: http://
SUCCESS: http://
SUCCESS: http://
SUCCESS: http://
UNSTABLE: http://
SUCCESS: http://
deb: http://
SUCCESS: http://
Click here to trigger a rebuild: s-jenkins. ubuntu- ci:8080/ job/unity8- ci/5362/ rebuild
http://