OpenLP

Merge lp://qastaging/~suutari-olli/openlp/default-visibility-preset-fixes into lp://qastaging/openlp

  1. default-visibility-preset-fixes
  2. Merge into trunk
Proposed by Azaziah
Status: Merged
Approved by: Tim Bentley
Approved revision: 2650
Merged at revision: 2647
Proposed branch: lp://qastaging/~suutari-olli/openlp/default-visibility-preset-fixes
Merge into: lp://qastaging/openlp
Diff against target: 294 lines (+124/-15)
4 files modified
openlp/core/common/settings.py (+3/-1)
openlp/core/ui/firsttimewizard.py (+36/-11)
openlp/core/ui/mainwindow.py (+29/-3)
tests/functional/openlp_core_ui/test_mainwindow.py (+56/-0)
To merge this branch: bzr merge lp://qastaging/~suutari-olli/openlp/default-visibility-preset-fixes
Reviewer Review Type Date Requested Status
Tim Bentley Approve
Raoul Snyman Approve
Review via email: mp+292187@code.qastaging.launchpad.net

This proposal supersedes a proposal from 2016-04-15.

Description of the change

This branch introduces the following fixes/features:

- Fixed bug 1565447 (Unable to save panel visibility if View mode is used)
  (Added a hidden setting for controlling this)
- Locking Panels now also locks “View” menu so view menu can’t
  be set if panels are locked.
- Panels are now locked by default, this prevents users from
  totally messing their UI so easily.
- Added a checkbox for disabling/enabling Projectors during first time wizard
  (By default disabled, added a hidden setting for controlling this.)
- Improved UI messages on 1st time wizard Enable/Disable plugins page

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this re-proposal:

- Changed how the setting is called
- Reformatted short description for projectors and presentations
- Added two tests for checking if projectors is visible or not after the wizard.

lp:~suutari-olli/openlp/default-visibility-preset-fixes (revision 2650)
[←[1;32mSUCCESS←[1;m] https://ci.openlp.io/job/Branch-01-Pull/1461/
[←[1;32mSUCCESS←[1;m] https://ci.openlp.io/job/Branch-02-Functional-Tests/1378/
[←[1;32mSUCCESS←[1;m] https://ci.openlp.io/job/Branch-03-Interface-Tests/1316/
[←[1;32mSUCCESS←[1;m] https://ci.openlp.io/job/Branch-04a-Windows_Functional_Tests/1118/
[←[1;32mSUCCESS←[1;m] https://ci.openlp.io/job/Branch-04b-Windows_Interface_Tests/709/
[←[1;32mSUCCESS←[1;m] https://ci.openlp.io/job/Branch-05a-Code_Analysis/776/
[←[1;32mSUCCESS←[1;m] https://ci.openlp.io/job/Branch-05b-Test_Coverage/644/

To post a comment you must log in.
Revision history for this message
Raoul Snyman (raoul-snyman) wrote : Posted in a previous version of this proposal

We're trying to move toward a standard way of naming boolean values. In essence, the boolean variables should ask a question, and their value should answer that question.

So:

'user interface/is preset layout'

"Is [this a] preset layout?" Yes (True) or No (False)

Could you just rename this please?

Also, tests.

review: Needs Fixing
Revision history for this message
Raoul Snyman (raoul-snyman) wrote :

Yes, this looks OK to me. Remind me to spin it up on my netbook sometime to check how it influences my usage there.

review: Approve
Revision history for this message
Tim Bentley (trb143) :
review: Approve

Preview Diff

[H/L] Next/Prev Comment, [J/K] Next/Prev File, [N/P] Next/Prev Hunk
The diff is not available at this time. You can reload the page or download it.