Merge lp://staging/~josharenson/unity8/fix_trust_store_focus into lp://staging/unity8

Proposed by Josh Arenson
Status: Merged
Approved by: Michael Zanetti
Approved revision: 1371
Merged at revision: 1436
Proposed branch: lp://staging/~josharenson/unity8/fix_trust_store_focus
Merge into: lp://staging/unity8
Diff against target: 73 lines (+40/-1)
3 files modified
qml/Stages/SessionContainer.qml (+4/-0)
tests/mocks/Unity/Application/Session.h (+1/-1)
tests/qmltests/Stages/tst_SessionContainer.qml (+35/-0)
To merge this branch: bzr merge lp://staging/~josharenson/unity8/fix_trust_store_focus
Reviewer Review Type Date Requested Status
Michael Zanetti (community) Approve
PS Jenkins bot (community) continuous-integration Approve
Review via email: mp+239567@code.staging.launchpad.net

Commit message

Return focus to the application after a tusted session overlay is closing.

Description of the change

* 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

 * If you changed the packaging (debian), did you subscribe the ubuntu-unity team to this MP?
N/A

Fix lp:1381292

This works around an issue where a trusted session dialog would steal focus from an underlying application/session and never return it.

To post a comment you must log in.
Revision history for this message
PS Jenkins bot (ps-jenkins) wrote :
review: Needs Fixing (continuous-integration)
Revision history for this message
Michael Zanetti (mzanetti) wrote :

With the current way we're doing focus I guess this is the way to go, not really a hack. What is the reason why you think this is a hack? What would you say is the proper fix?

I guess I'm fine with approving this, maybe we can even remove the FIXME comment.

review: Needs Information
Revision history for this message
Josh Arenson (josharenson) wrote :

> With the current way we're doing focus I guess this is the way to go, not
> really a hack. What is the reason why you think this is a hack? What would you
> say is the proper fix?
>
> I guess I'm fine with approving this, maybe we can even remove the FIXME
> comment.

If focus worked correctly, this wouldn't be a hack. I'll remove the FIXME because any focus changes we make should work with this anyway.

1371. By Josh Arenson

Remove FIXME

Revision history for this message
PS Jenkins bot (ps-jenkins) wrote :
review: Needs Fixing (continuous-integration)
Revision history for this message
PS Jenkins bot (ps-jenkins) wrote :
review: Approve (continuous-integration)
Revision history for this message
Michael Zanetti (mzanetti) wrote :

 * Did you perform an exploratory manual test run of the code change and any related functionality?

yep

 * Did CI run pass? If not, please explain why.

it did

 * Did you make sure that the branch does not contain spurious tags?

yeah

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.

Subscribers

People subscribed via source and target branches