-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/129709/#review101613
-----------------------------------------------------------



I'd say this could really do with some autotests

- Albert Astals Cid


On Dec. 27, 2016, 5:46 p.m., David Jarvie wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/129709/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Dec. 27, 2016, 5:46 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for KDE Frameworks and John Layt.
> 
> 
> Repository: kwidgetsaddons
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Checks to determine whether an entered date is valid are wrong or missing in 
> various places in the code. This is due to:
> - not testing if a minimum or maximum date is set before comparing a date to 
> the minimum/maximum;
> - always rejecting new minimum/maximum dates if the other maximum/minimum 
> date is not set;
> - not testing dates for validity when set by the date picker or menu.
> 
> This results in the following bugs currently:
> - When an up/down arrow or page up/down key is pressed to change the date, it 
> is always considered invalid and the date is not changed.
> - When the DateKeywords option is set, the only date which is displayed in 
> the menu is "No Date".
> - setMinimumDate() and resetMinimumDate() do nothing if no maximum date is 
> currently set.
> - setMaximumDate() and resetMaximumDate() do nothing if no minimum date is 
> currently set.
> - resetDateRange() does nothing.
> 
> This patch fixes the above bugs.
> 
> Documentation comments in the header file are also improved.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/kdatecombobox.h d9a20ca 
>   src/kdatecombobox.cpp ad1d085 
> 
> Diff: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/129709/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Tested with KAlarm, including setting DateKeywords. The bugs described above 
> are now fixed.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> David Jarvie
> 
>

Reply via email to