mir client API is missing getters for some surface attributes
Bug #1336553 reported by
Daniel d'Andrada
This bug affects 1 person
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mir |
Fix Released
|
Low
|
Robert Carr | ||
mir (Ubuntu) |
Fix Released
|
Low
|
Unassigned |
Bug Description
mir_surface_
mir_surface_
mir_surface_
mir_surface_
mir_surface_
mir_surface_
Related branches
lp:~mir-team/mir/improve-attribute-protocol-and-normalize-getters
- Gerry Boland (community): Approve
- Alexandros Frantzis (community): Approve
- Daniel van Vugt: Abstain
- Chris Halse Rogers: Approve
- PS Jenkins bot (community): Approve (continuous-integration)
-
Diff: 933 lines (+383/-171)16 files modifiedinclude/client/mir_toolkit/mir_surface.h (+14/-0)
include/server/mir/frontend/surface.h (+1/-0)
include/shared/mir_toolkit/common.h (+4/-0)
include/test/mir_test_doubles/mock_frontend_surface.h (+1/-0)
include/test/mir_test_doubles/stub_scene_surface.h (+1/-0)
src/client/mir_surface.cpp (+6/-3)
src/client/mir_surface.h (+3/-0)
src/client/mir_surface_api.cpp (+49/-10)
src/server/frontend/session_mediator.cpp (+9/-0)
src/server/scene/basic_surface.cpp (+125/-62)
src/server/scene/basic_surface.h (+9/-8)
src/shared/protobuf/mir_protobuf.proto (+2/-0)
tests/acceptance-tests/test_client_surface_visibility.cpp (+4/-1)
tests/unit-tests/client/test_client_mir_surface.cpp (+38/-26)
tests/unit-tests/scene/test_basic_surface.cpp (+117/-15)
tests/unit-tests/scene/test_surface_impl.cpp (+0/-46)
Changed in mir: | |
assignee: | nobody → Robert Carr (robertcarr) |
status: | New → In Progress |
Changed in mir: | |
milestone: | none → 0.5.0 |
status: | Triaged → In Progress |
Changed in mir: | |
milestone: | 0.5.0 → 0.6.0 |
Changed in mir: | |
status: | Fix Committed → Fix Released |
To post a comment you must log in.
I recall focus being an attribute was kind of a convenient hack to fit the existing code. Really I still don't think it should be an attribute and thus should not have a getter. Surely it's more useful to ask Mir which surface has focus rather than probe each one. You can do more with such a function.
As for visibility, AFAIK we have no client API to explicitly set visibility so it shouldn't be gettable yet either.