Merge lp://qastaging/~mhr3/libunity/view-types into lp://qastaging/libunity
Proposed by
Michal Hruby
| Status: | Merged | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Approved by: | Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen | ||||
| Approved revision: | 102 | ||||
| Merged at revision: | 100 | ||||
| Proposed branch: | lp://qastaging/~mhr3/libunity/view-types | ||||
| Merge into: | lp://qastaging/libunity | ||||
| Diff against target: |
566 lines (+191/-62) 9 files modified
src/unity-lens-interface.vala (+8/-1) src/unity-lens-private.vala (+5/-3) src/unity-scope-interface.vala (+1/-1) src/unity-scope-private.vala (+62/-15) src/unity-scope-proxy-local.vala (+6/-5) src/unity-scope-proxy-remote.vala (+20/-5) src/unity-scope-proxy.vala (+1/-1) src/unity-scope.vala (+41/-15) test/vala/test-scope-signals.vala (+47/-16) |
||||
| To merge this branch: | bzr merge lp://qastaging/~mhr3/libunity/view-types | ||||
| Related bugs: |
|
| Reviewer | Review Type | Date Requested | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen (community) | Approve | ||
|
Review via email:
|
|||
Description of the change
Use new SetViewType DBus method to inform lenses and scopes which view is currently active in the dash, which allows us to minimize the number of model updates.
Add new Scope.invalidat
To post a comment you must log in.
Revision history for this message
| Michal Hruby (mhr3) wrote | # |
Preview Diff
[H/L] Next/Prev Comment, [J/K] Next/Prev File, [N/P] Next/Prev Hunk
Please update the merge description to also mention the new invalidate_search() method, as this'll become the merge commit statement.
139 + if (search_type >= SearchType.N_TYPES) return;
Why not use the requires() contract you use elsewhere?
137 + public void invalidate_search (SearchType search_type)
138 + {
139 + if (search_type >= SearchType.N_TYPES) return;
140 +
141 + search_
142 + // FIXME: should this also cancel current search?
143 + }
Can you add a short doc comment on this method as I think it'll be unclear to the uninitiated to see what the intention is. Regarding the fixme - I don't think it should cancel. If the intention is clearly defined as "re-submit the query next time no matter what", it can be used during a search to return "unclean results" so to say...