[Bugs] #1673 HIGH: discard network history does nothing
Sugar Labs Bugs
bugtracker-noreply at sugarlabs.org
Mon Aug 23 19:42:47 EDT 2010
#1673: discard network history does nothing
-----------------------+----------------------------------------------------
Reporter: quozl | Owner: tomeu
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: High | Milestone: 0.88.x
Component: sugar | Version: Git as of bugdate
Severity: Minor | Keywords: r!
Distribution: | Status_field: New
-----------------------+----------------------------------------------------
Comment(by quozl):
None of you seem willing to show your suggestions as code, so I'm
presuming you are looking for consensus. I don't think consensus has been
achieved.
I'm happy with the commit in 0.84.15 on 2010-04-01 (fcb1cec), and have no
great desire to fix it for 0.88 yet, but I'm sure we can get there
eventually, once there is consensus on how it should be applied. I shall
wait for consensus.
Regarding Tomeu's doubt that I will find in Sugar a loop with 3
synchronous D-Bus calls like that one I'm introducing in my patch ...
that's false, I'm copying this ''_disconnect_activate_cb'' code with
slight modifications from ''_'''_'''deactivate_connection_cb'' in
extensions/deviceicon/network.py ... and if you think that
''_'''_'''deactivate_connection_cb'' should be fixed then raise a separate
ticket. I don't think it should be fixed, because it's not broken. Yes,
mixing synchronous and asynchronous D-Bus calls is unwise, but it usually
works, as can be seen in the existing code. I propose a separate ticket
for review and fix of use of synchronous D-Bus calls.
Regarding a split point ... I agree that the split described by Tomeu is
one option, but I don't see why it is the best option. The unsplit patch
was fully tested, and the 0.84 unsplit variant of the patch has had
extensive testing in the OLPC XO-1 and XO-1.5 builds. Also, I was
especially asked by Tomeu in IRC to fix (and therefore test) the use of
the dbus.PROPERTIES_IFACE constant. Perhaps it should be dropped
altogether if it causes a need to split. I propose a separate ticket for
that.
Are there any further suggestions? The new activity on this ticket is
very encouraging. I guess it is because the 0.88 deployments are
affected?
--
Ticket URL: <http://bugs.sugarlabs.org/ticket/1673#comment:18>
Sugar Labs <http://sugarlabs.org/>
Sugar Labs bug tracking system
More information about the Bugs
mailing list