[Sugar-devel] [PATCH sugar] Anly approve and not handle channels in the shell, part of OLPC #10738

[Samuel Greenfeld]

Sorry about that; yes it was tested.

Tested-by: Samuel Greenfeld <greenfeld at laptop.org>


On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Simon Schampijer <simon at schampijer.de>wrote:

> On 04/15/2011 06:47 PM, Sascha Silbe wrote:
>
>> Excerpts from Simon Schampijer's message of Thu Apr 14 19:42:05 +0200
>> 2011:
>>
>>> We only approve channels in the shell and do not claim to handle them
>>> anymore. The handling is now done by the activity (toolkit patch).
>>> More info about approving and handling of channels can be found at [1].
>>>
>>>
>>  This patch does as well only handle sugar activity invitations,
>>> invitations
>>> from non-sugar clients will be handled in a separate patch.
>>>
>>
>> s/as well // ?
>>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>  [src/jarabe/model/telepathyclient.py]
>>
>>> @@ -60,8 +62,17 @@ class TelepathyClient(dbus.service.Object,
>>> DBusProperties):
>>>
>>>      def __get_filters_cb(self):
>>>          logging.debug('__get_filters_cb')
>>> -        filter_dict = dbus.Dictionary({}, signature='sv')
>>> -        return dbus.Array([filter_dict], signature='a{sv}')
>>> +
>>> +        filt = {
>>> +            CHANNEL + '.ChannelType': CHANNEL_TYPE_TEXT,
>>> +            CHANNEL + '.TargetHandleType': CONNECTION_HANDLE_TYPE_ROOM,
>>> +            }
>>> +        filter_dict = dbus.Dictionary(filt, signature='sv')
>>> +        filters = dbus.Array([filter_dict], signature='a{sv}')
>>> +
>>> +        logging.debug('__get_filters_cb %r', filters)
>>> +
>>> +        return filters
>>>
>>
>> Given that "filt" is non-empty, do we really need the explicit
>> conversions? I.e. would the following work?
>>
>>     def __get_filters_cb(self):
>>         logging.debug('__get_filters_cb')
>>         return [{
>>             CHANNEL + '.ChannelType': CHANNEL_TYPE_TEXT,
>>             CHANNEL + '.TargetHandleType': CONNECTION_HANDLE_TYPE_ROOM,
>>             }]
>>
>> (The content seems to be static, so it wouldn't make sense to log it.)
>>
>
> Ok, the logging can go away.
>
>
>  The general approach looks fine. With or without the above changes, but
>> after you got Samuels Tested-By:
>>
>
> Sam, did you test this already?
>
> Regards,
>   Simon
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20110429/279ab8d3/attachment.html>