dbus-1-tqt does not support array of objectpathkeymaps #1
Συγχωνευμένα
SlavekB
συγχώνευσε 1 υποβολές από bug/2925/objectpath σε master 6 έτη πριν
Φόρτωση…
Αναφορά σε νέο ζήτημα
Δεν υπάρχει ακόμα περιεχόμενο.
Διαγραφή του Κλάδου 'bug/2925/objectpath'
Η διαγραφή του κλάδου είναι μόνιμη. ΔΕΝ ΜΠΟΡΕΙ να αναιρεθεί. Συνέχεια;
https://bugs.trinitydesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2925
When trying to parse data with signature a{oa{sa{sv}}} the flow is something like this:
TQT_DBusProxy::sendWithReply
-> TQT_DBusConnection::sendWithReply
-> TQT_DBusMessage::fromDBusMessage(reply)
-> TQT_DBusMarshall::messageToList(message, dmsg)
-> qFetchParameter(&it)
-> TQT_DBusData qFetchMap
-> qFetchStringKeyMapEntry
It turned out that it does not support array of objectpathkeymaps and it was returning a null key, which explains why it was returning always the last entry
The code looks good. It does not seem to cause any change to the API / ABI. Please, just a little cleaning.
Note: Please remove the test output as an ammend of an existing commit and then use push with -f.
// dbus_message_iter_get_fixed_array(&sub,&data,&len);// return TQCString(data,len);// } else {Well, it's a good idea to remove this unused code. It looks a little confusing, so it'll be better if it's gone.
Any idea why that code was commented out? Could it be useful?
I have no idea. This code is here in a comment from the first commit into the Trinity repository. Additionally, obviously if / else / else is not consistent.
yes, the commented else is obviously confusing. Given that the code was always commented out from the beginning, removing it seems ok 👍
This was the reason why I removed it - it seems it was never used or at least not in this life of this piece of software
Q_ASSERT(dbus_message_iter_has_next(&itemIter));TQString key = qFetchParameter(&itemIter).toString();// tqDebug("qFetchStringKeyMapEntry key : %s", key.latin1());Please, can you remove this unused test output from your patch?
@deloptes, please do the small cleaning as mentioned in the review above.
Hi Slavek,
sorry for the multiple commits, I tried for first time the ammend but failed miserably :)
regards
All right, it does not matter – I did squash to combine your series of commits into one 😸
f126c44916.