![]() > I think your patch is likely to end up with the change notification getting out > You're right that producing change notification signals is desirable, so your I just noticed I didn't receive a notification of this comment =/ ![]() Hmm, all bugzillas I've seen add me to the Cc list by default. G_ptr_array_add (aliases, tp_value_array_build (2, We know that TP_STRUCT_TYPE_ALIAS_PAIR is a GValueArray, so since telepathy-glib 0.9.2 (sadly not available on Maemo 5), you could delete entirely, and use: With the change I suggest below, this wouldn't be necessary +197,3 aliases = g_ptr_array_sized_new (1) It'd be better to include and use TP_STRUCT_TYPE_ALIAS_PAIR (we should kill off all the HAZE_TP_*_TYPE at some point, now that telepathy-glib generates them all). + dbus_g_type_specialized_construct (HAZE_TP_ALIAS_PAIR_TYPE)) It's spelled "success" +189,3 g_value_init (&entry, HAZE_TP_ALIAS_PAIR_TYPE) +set_alias_succeess_cb (PurpleAccount *account, To make backporting to Maemo 5 easier, perhaps you could implement my other suggestions from above (producing a patch suitable for backporting to Maemo), then do this simplification as a second patch? G_ptr_array_add (aliases, tp_value_ array_build (2, We know that TP_STRUCT_ TYPE_ALIAS_ PAIR is a GValueArray, so since telepathy-glib 0.9.2 (sadly not available on Maemo 5), you could delete entirely, and use: + g_ptr_array_add (aliases, g_value_get_boxed (&entry)) With the change I suggest below, this wouldn't be necessary +197,3 aliases = g_ptr_array_ sized_new (1) It'd be better to include and use TP_STRUCT_ TYPE_ALIAS_ PAIR (we should kill off all the HAZE_TP_*_TYPE at some point, now that telepathy-glib generates them all). + dbus_g_ type_specialize d_construct (HAZE_TP_ ALIAS_PAIR_ TYPE)) It's spelled "success" +189,3 g_value_init (&entry, HAZE_TP_ ALIAS_PAIR_ TYPE) ![]() +set_alias_ succeess_ cb (PurpleAccount *account, behave like we both did here) I'll open a bug for the lack of error reporting. I'd be inclined to not do the error reporting yet (i.e. (What I mean by that is: calling RequestAliases or whatever, just after the change signal, won't give the same answer as the signal) I think your patch is likely to end up with the change notification getting out of sync with the state recovery, due to Bug #25869? It's better than nothing, though. You're right that producing change notification signals is desirable, so your patch is better than mine thanks! ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |