> On May 18, 2011, 11:34 a.m., David Edmundson wrote:
> > groups-model.cpp, line 277
> > <http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/101380/diff/3/?file=16628#file16628line277>
> >
> >     beginRemoveRows code should NOT be here.
> >     
> >     removing the proxyNode will emit "itemsRemoved" and it will all hit 
> > your "onItemsRemovedCode" which does it.

Actually it won't. The signal is never emitted and the node is removed 
directly. Could use some rethinking though.


> On May 18, 2011, 11:34 a.m., David Edmundson wrote:
> > groups-model-item.cpp, line 97
> > <http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/101380/diff/3/?file=16626#file16626line97>
> >
> >     I totally agree with my own comment here.
> >

Well there's not much a difference if the constructor is called in 
groups-mode-item or groups-model before calling this method, so ok, I'll change 
it.


> On May 18, 2011, 11:34 a.m., David Edmundson wrote:
> > contact-delegate.cpp, line 75
> > <http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/101380/diff/3/?file=16624#file16624line75>
> >
> >     I don't see why you need the
> >     
> >     if (m_usingGroups)
> >     here. 
> >     
> >     the isContact = index.data()...== qMetaType<ContactModelItem*> works 
> > here in either case.

Indeed it does. Hm..I wonder if we shouldn't return ProxyTreeNode rather than 
ContactModelItem on AccountsModel::ItemRole.


> On May 18, 2011, 11:34 a.m., David Edmundson wrote:
> > contact-delegate.h, line 45
> > <http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/101380/diff/3/?file=16623#file16623line45>
> >
> >     I don't really see why we need this. Ideally we should avoid having 
> > code that can go out of sync.
> >     
> >     For each item we're asked to paint we can see "is it a contact, a group 
> > header, or an account header". We can then do the appropriate action.
> >     
> >     Maybe we should change "isContact" in the main body of the code, to an 
> > enum.

True, I'll look into that.


- Martin


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/101380/#review3378
-----------------------------------------------------------


On May 18, 2011, 8:43 a.m., Martin Klapetek wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/101380/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated May 18, 2011, 8:43 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Telepathy.
> 
> 
> Summary
> -------
> 
> This patch adds cross-account groups to contact list.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   CMakeLists.txt 919df77 
>   account-filter-model.h 6591355 
>   account-filter-model.cpp 75f2126 
>   contact-delegate.h 46fea76 
>   contact-delegate.cpp 209e715 
>   groups-model-item.h PRE-CREATION 
>   groups-model-item.cpp PRE-CREATION 
>   groups-model.h PRE-CREATION 
>   groups-model.cpp PRE-CREATION 
>   main-widget.h 7a5e417 
>   main-widget.cpp 20e8003 
>   proxy-tree-node.h PRE-CREATION 
>   proxy-tree-node.cpp PRE-CREATION 
>   telepathy-kde-contactlist.notifyrc 918736e 
>   tree-node.h adeefa4 
>   tree-node.cpp f892d5a 
> 
> Diff: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/101380/diff
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Tested with several accounts with groups, also tried moving contacts between 
> groups from another client. 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Martin
> 
>

_______________________________________________
KDE-Telepathy mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-telepathy

Reply via email to