Fixed in e65e90a6600814301d5a9c603c943c3c5d91dd8d

2017-06-28 10:52 GMT+09:00 Jean-Philippe André <[email protected]>:

>
>
> 2017-06-28 7:16 GMT+09:00 Stefan Schmidt <[email protected]>:
>
>> Hello.
>>
>> On 06/22/2017 09:14 AM, Jean-Philippe ANDRÉ wrote:
>>
>>> jpeg pushed a commit to branch master.
>>>
>>> http://git.enlightenment.org/core/efl.git/commit/?id=56a7423
>>> 8d1fd475546373f2e2eddbd7ef55dd3fa
>>>
>>> commit 56a74238d1fd475546373f2e2eddbd7ef55dd3fa
>>> Author: Jean-Philippe Andre <[email protected]>
>>> Date:   Thu Jun 22 09:05:41 2017 +0900
>>>
>>>      edje: Improve error report with efl_part misuse
>>>           This improves a rare error message when a function is called
>>> on an
>>>      efl_part() that does not implement it. Example: calling a swallow
>>>      function on a non-swallow part.
>>>           This isn't entirely fool-proof but should already help quite a
>>> bit.
>>>           This also changes how the efl_part proxies are stored: the
>>> variable
>>>      is not reset to NULL every time we use it, instead we check it in
>>>      the del intercept.
>>>           Note: _part_reuse_error() can not be enabled inside
>>>      _internal_proxy_get because there are valid use cases such as:
>>>             func1(efl_part(obj, part), func2(efl_part(obj, part), ...),
>>> ...)
>>>           Here we use two efl_part() at the same time, on the same
>>> object,
>>>      but we haven't entered "func1" yet when we are reaching the second
>>>      call to efl_part(). This is completely valid and there is pretty
>>>      much no way to detect this.
>>>           I think I will improve this later with a core function on
>>>      Efl.Object like "debug_string".
>>>           Ref T5584
>>>
>>
>> I had trouble with the edje test suite failing when trying to produce the
>> alpha tarballs. Git bisect points me to this one. Reverting it locally
>> fixed my problem.
>>
>> tests/edje/edje_test_edje.c:707:F:Edje:edje_test_table_eoapi:0: Failure
>> 'efl_content_count(proxy) != 4' occurred
>>
>> JP, any idea what is wrong here or should we revert?
>>
>
> Thanks, I'll have a look at this.
> A revert shouldn't be necessary, but this error might reveal a problem in
> that patch :)
>
> --
> Jean-Philippe André
>



-- 
Jean-Philippe André
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Reply via email to