Generated code by dbusxml2qt3 should use TQ_OBJECT and not Q_OBJECT #15

Closed
opened 5 years ago by deloptes · 4 comments
Collaborator

Basic information

  • TDE version: R14.1
  • Distribution: Debian Stretch
  • Hardware: any

Description

When running tqmoc on a Proxy.cpp file, it gives a warning regarding Q_OBJECT macro.

tqmoc service1Proxy.h
service1Proxy.h:57: Error: The declaration of the class "Service1Proxy" contains signals or slots
         but no TQ_OBJECT macro.

moc file is generated as this is just a warning, but we should fix this as well.

## Basic information - TDE version: R14.1 - Distribution: Debian Stretch - Hardware: any <!-- Use SL/* labels to set the severity level. Please do not set a milestone. --> ## Description When running tqmoc on a <x>Proxy.cpp file, it gives a warning regarding Q_OBJECT macro. ``` tqmoc service1Proxy.h service1Proxy.h:57: Error: The declaration of the class "Service1Proxy" contains signals or slots but no TQ_OBJECT macro. ``` moc file is generated as this is just a warning, but we should fix this as well.
Owner

In usual processing, tmoc is called instead of tqmoc:

tmoc service1Proxy.h -o service1Proxy.moc

Such a call ensures the automatic use of tqt-replace-stream before calling tqmoc, thus not displaying the warning.

As far as I know, in the source code is now commonly used Q_OBJECT, not TQ_OBJECT. Therefore, I believe that it would not be correct to use TQ_OBJECT in these generated files.

In usual processing, `tmoc` is called instead of `tqmoc`: ``` tmoc service1Proxy.h -o service1Proxy.moc ``` Such a call ensures the automatic use of `tqt-replace-stream` before calling `tqmoc`, thus not displaying the warning. As far as I know, in the source code is now commonly used `Q_OBJECT`, not `TQ_OBJECT`. Therefore, I believe that it would not be correct to use `TQ_OBJECT` in these generated files.
Owner

This will probably be address after R14.1.0 release 😉

This will probably be address after R14.1.0 release :wink:
Owner

I am of the opinion that we can now close this issue because the current code is fine and we need to use tmoc, not tqmoc.

I am of the opinion that we can now close this issue because the current code is fine and we need to use tmoc, not tqmoc.
Poster
Collaborator

OK, thank you Slavek, I agree and close.

OK, thank you Slavek, I agree and close.
deloptes closed this issue 5 years ago
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Milestone
No Assignees
3 Participants
Notifications
Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: TDE/dbus-1-tqt#15
Loading…
There is no content yet.