Tom Mueller wrote:
John,
Might it be better to change the superclass of GUIProgressTracker to
progress.NullProgressTracker so that if methods are added to
ProgressTracker in the future, you will automatically get an empty
implementation of them?
Tom sounds like a good idea, I'll try it out for both PM and UM.
JR
Tom
jmr wrote:
Simple change to add in new methods introduced to ProgressTracker as
part of cset 1087 (#8214) which breaks UpdateManager as it implements
GUIProgressTracker, derived from ProgressTracker.
http://cr.opensolaris.org/~jmr/pm_8581_01May_1005am/
8581 UM broken by changes in ProgressTracker
1087 changed PM but not UM. A nightly touch test of the GUI apps
would be useful to catch this type of thing, I normally do this
before a checkin which is how I picked this up. Michal is working on
automated tests with Conny so sooner we get these tests landed the
better.
JR
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
