Re: [Libreoffice] [PUSHED] Clean code at writer [source/ui]
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 02:02:16PM -0800, Kayo Hamid wrote:
Covering {fldui,fmtui,frmdlg,globdoc,index,lingu,misc}, sending for review.
My patchs are ok? I see so many changes, I want to known if i'm doing
something wrong.
revol_
Pushed.
D.
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [PUSHED] Re: SmNodeToTextVisitor Fixes
Hi Luke, Just, pushed the two patches... Sorry, that it took a while to get back to you... By the way, is the SmNodeToTextVisitor as good as it gets now? Or is it possible to do more improvements ? and if so, should we leave as an easy hack we or someone can pickup later? (if not lets remove it from the wiki). I don't know how good it is with regards to minimizing the use of brackets. E.g. if it's realistic to do it any better... -- Regards Jonas Finnemann Jensen. On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 18:46, Luke Dixon 6b8b4...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Caolán, I suggest you cut and paste the header from http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/LibreOffice/LicenseHeader into the top of that new file and stick your name in there as the original contributor as it is new code. Thanks, that means a lot to me. I've attached a patch which does this. Though I must mention that I had copied the test you had added and just changed some bits. As an aside, in the test_starmath.cxx I hope to make it a cppunit build-time test equivalent testautomation/math/required/ and enable it to be built and executed on all platforms. I've been struggling a little bit with converting tests from testautomation/math/required/includes/m_002_.inc e.g. tmEditMarker into a build-time cppunit test given the dependencies that SmEditWindow has on basically a fully functioning Office environment, which I want to avoid. Easiest thing I'm now thinking is to tweak SmEditWindow itself to make it standlone testable. Unfortunately I think I've jumped in a bit too deep here. Looking at SmEditWindow it seems to depend on quite a bit of stuff that I don't understand. I think that you are right about tweaking it so it doesn't depend on these though, trying to fake the other parts would be a nightmare. I would offer to help, but I don't think I would know where to begin. I'm very sorry. Regards, Luke ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] getting LO into debian
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 04:08:37PM +0100, Jonathan Aquilina wrote: hey guys what is being done to get LO into debian so that downstream It already for almost a month. ubuntu can get it pulled from the upstream debian repository? Ask them, not me. Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' r...@debian.org | GnuPG-Key ID: D03E3E70 `- Fingerprint: E12D EA46 7506 70CF A960 801D 0AA0 4571 D03E 3E70 ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] getting LO into debian
Hi, On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 04:22:06PM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote: On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 04:08:37PM +0100, Jonathan Aquilina wrote: hey guys what is being done to get LO into debian so that downstream It already for almost a month. to make that more precise: first upload to Debian on *Oct, 13*. Accepted (because NEW package) etc.: Nov, 8. That was beta2. Beta3 got accepted on Nov, 18. http://packages.qa.debian.org/libr/libreoffice.html http://packages.debian.org/libreoffice ubuntu can get it pulled from the upstream debian repository? Ask them, not me. If they can't do a simple pull in one month, though they are paid for doing it and /me who did already the major work (also at nights!) for it, well.. Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' r...@debian.org | GnuPG-Key ID: D03E3E70 `- Fingerprint: E12D EA46 7506 70CF A960 801D 0AA0 4571 D03E 3E70 ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] getting LO into debian
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 04:36:50PM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote: Ask them, not me. If they can't do a simple pull in one month, though they are paid for doing it and /me who did already the major work (also at nights!) for it, well.. And I wonder why you ask anyways: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/651124 Grüße/Regards, René ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] [PATCH] improve style according to cppcheck
Hi,
Followed cppcheck.
Cheers,
-- Takeshi Abe
From a3800ef12f07f6ac56bca79aa55ad480de8cbc84 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Takeshi Abe t...@fixedpoint.jp
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 01:28:16 +0900
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] cppcheck: reduce the scope of variables
---
dbaccess/source/ui/misc/DExport.cxx |4 ++--
dbaccess/source/ui/misc/TokenWriter.cxx |4 ++--
dbaccess/source/ui/tabledesign/TEditControl.cxx |3 +--
3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/dbaccess/source/ui/misc/DExport.cxx b/dbaccess/source/ui/misc/DExport.cxx
index cd9704d..86ebda9 100644
--- a/dbaccess/source/ui/misc/DExport.cxx
+++ b/dbaccess/source/ui/misc/DExport.cxx
@@ -330,13 +330,13 @@ void ODatabaseExport::insertValueIntoColumn()
m_pUpdateHelper-updateNull(nPos,pField-GetType());
else
{
-sal_Int32 nNumberFormat = 0;
-double fOutNumber = 0.0;
OSL_ENSURE((nNewPos) static_castsal_Int32(m_vColumnTypes.size()),Illegal index for vector);
if (m_vColumnTypes[nNewPos] != DataType::VARCHAR m_vColumnTypes[nNewPos] != DataType::CHAR m_vColumnTypes[nNewPos] != DataType::LONGVARCHAR )
{
RTL_LOGFILE_CONTEXT_TRACE( aLogger, ODatabaseExport::insertValueIntoColumn != DataType::VARCHAR );
ensureFormatter();
+sal_Int32 nNumberFormat = 0;
+double fOutNumber = 0.0;
bool bNumberFormatError = false;
if ( m_pFormatter m_sNumToken.Len() )
{
diff --git a/dbaccess/source/ui/misc/TokenWriter.cxx b/dbaccess/source/ui/misc/TokenWriter.cxx
index 800394f..a92f474 100644
--- a/dbaccess/source/ui/misc/TokenWriter.cxx
+++ b/dbaccess/source/ui/misc/TokenWriter.cxx
@@ -1005,13 +1005,13 @@ void OHTMLImportExport::WriteCell( sal_Int32 nFormat,sal_Int32 nWidthPixel,sal_I
aStrTD = aStrTD + =;
aStrTD = aStrTD + pChar;
-double fVal = 0.0;
-
Reference ::com::sun::star::util::XNumberFormatsSupplier xSupplier = m_xFormatter-getNumberFormatsSupplier();
SvNumberFormatsSupplierObj* pSupplierImpl = SvNumberFormatsSupplierObj::getImplementation( xSupplier );
SvNumberFormatter* pFormatter = pSupplierImpl ? pSupplierImpl-GetNumberFormatter() : NULL;
if(pFormatter)
{
+double fVal = 0.0;
+
try
{
fVal = m_xFormatter-convertStringToNumber(nFormat,rValue);
diff --git a/dbaccess/source/ui/tabledesign/TEditControl.cxx b/dbaccess/source/ui/tabledesign/TEditControl.cxx
index 1a1eb6f..4f4dedb 100644
--- a/dbaccess/source/ui/tabledesign/TEditControl.cxx
+++ b/dbaccess/source/ui/tabledesign/TEditControl.cxx
@@ -1781,7 +1781,6 @@ void OTableEditorCtrl::SetPrimaryKey( sal_Bool bSet )
// Evtl. vorhandene Primary Keys loeschen
MultiSelection aDeletedPrimKeys;
aDeletedPrimKeys.SetTotalRange( Range(0,GetRowCount()) );
-long nIndex = 0;
::std::vector ::boost::shared_ptrOTableRow ::const_iterator aIter = m_pRowList-begin();
::std::vector ::boost::shared_ptrOTableRow ::const_iterator aEnd = m_pRowList-end();
@@ -1800,7 +1799,7 @@ void OTableEditorCtrl::SetPrimaryKey( sal_Bool bSet )
aInsertedPrimKeys.SetTotalRange( Range(0,GetRowCount()) );
if( bSet )
{
-nIndex = FirstSelectedRow();
+long nIndex = FirstSelectedRow();
while( nIndex = 0 nIndex static_castlong(m_pRowList-size()) )
{
//
--
1.7.2.3
From 7efb4238e92e2a059fa6bda829b3908d35229a41 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Takeshi Abe t...@fixedpoint.jp
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 01:31:30 +0900
Subject: [PATCH 2/3] cppcheck: use ++ as prefix
---
dbaccess/source/core/api/RowSet.cxx |6 +++---
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/dbaccess/source/core/api/RowSet.cxx b/dbaccess/source/core/api/RowSet.cxx
index 20f28b6..3775896 100644
--- a/dbaccess/source/core/api/RowSet.cxx
+++ b/dbaccess/source/core/api/RowSet.cxx
@@ -560,7 +560,7 @@ void ORowSet::freeResources( bool _bComplete )
// free all clones
connectivity::OWeakRefArray::iterator aEnd = m_aClones.end();
-for (connectivity::OWeakRefArray::iterator i = m_aClones.begin(); aEnd != i; i++)
+for (connectivity::OWeakRefArray::iterator i = m_aClones.begin(); aEnd != i; ++i)
{
Reference XComponent xComp(i-get(), UNO_QUERY);
if (xComp.is())
@@ -2118,7 +2118,7 @@ void ORowSet::notifyRowSetAndClonesRowDelete( const Any _rBookmark )
onDeleteRow( _rBookmark );
// notify the clones
connectivity::OWeakRefArray::iterator aEnd = m_aClones.end();
-for (connectivity::OWeakRefArray::iterator i = m_aClones.begin(); aEnd != i; i++)
+for
Re: [Libreoffice] getting LO into debian
On 11/27/2010 05:36 PM, Rene Engelhard wrote: Hi, On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 04:22:06PM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote: On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 04:08:37PM +0100, Jonathan Aquilina wrote: hey guys what is being done to get LO into debian so that downstream It already for almost a month. to make that more precise: first upload to Debian on *Oct, 13*. Accepted (because NEW package) etc.: Nov, 8. That was beta2. Beta3 got accepted on Nov, 18. http://packages.qa.debian.org/libr/libreoffice.html http://packages.debian.org/libreoffice ubuntu can get it pulled from the upstream debian repository? Ask them, not me. If they can't do a simple pull in one month, though they are paid for doing it and /me who did already the major work (also at nights!) for it, well.. There may be exceptions but I think Ubuntu pulls from sid not from experimental as a rule. When the package appears in sid it will probably be available in Ubuntu devel version in a short time. Jani ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] getting LO into debian
On 27/11/10 17:20, Jani Monoses wrote: On 11/27/2010 05:36 PM, Rene Engelhard wrote: Hi, On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 04:22:06PM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote: On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 04:08:37PM +0100, Jonathan Aquilina wrote: hey guys what is being done to get LO into debian so that downstream It already for almost a month. to make that more precise: first upload to Debian on *Oct, 13*. Accepted (because NEW package) etc.: Nov, 8. That was beta2. Beta3 got accepted on Nov, 18. http://packages.qa.debian.org/libr/libreoffice.html http://packages.debian.org/libreoffice ubuntu can get it pulled from the upstream debian repository? Ask them, not me. If they can't do a simple pull in one month, though they are paid for doing it and /me who did already the major work (also at nights!) for it, well.. There may be exceptions but I think Ubuntu pulls from sid not from experimental as a rule. When the package appears in sid it will probably be available in Ubuntu devel version in a short time. I wouldn't worry about it getting into Ubuntu. At UDS it was confirmed that LibreOffice would be in the default install, as well as Mark Shuttleworth saying it would replace OpenOffice. If you really want to make something happen, ping someone/ask the question in #ubuntu-desktop on irc.freenode.net (in the week). HTH -- Andrew ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] getting LO into debian
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 05:29:44PM +, Andrew wrote: If you really want to make something happen, ping someone/ask the question in #ubuntu-desktop on irc.freenode.net (in the week). I don't. I was just answering the OP. Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' r...@debian.org | GnuPG-Key ID: D03E3E70 `- Fingerprint: E12D EA46 7506 70CF A960 801D 0AA0 4571 D03E 3E70 ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] getting LO into debian
Jani if im not mistaken if a bug gets filed they might include it. Isnt Canonical a sponsor of the project. if that is the case they might bypass the rule and include it directly with out going to upstream debian ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] getting LO into debian
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 07:20:09PM +0200, Jani Monoses wrote: If they can't do a simple pull in one month, though they are paid for doing it and /me who did already the major work (also at nights!) for it, well.. There may be exceptions but I think Ubuntu pulls from sid not from experimental as a rule. When the package appears in sid it will probably be available in Ubuntu devel version in a short time. And: This is not the point. *I* don't care. The OPs mail simply shows Ubuntus attitude and cluelessless, both reasons for why they have to die. Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' r...@debian.org | GnuPG-Key ID: D03E3E70 `- Fingerprint: E12D EA46 7506 70CF A960 801D 0AA0 4571 D03E 3E70 ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] getting LO into debian
On 27/11/10 17:52, Rene Engelhard wrote: On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 07:20:09PM +0200, Jani Monoses wrote: If they can't do a simple pull in one month, though they are paid for doing it and /me who did already the major work (also at nights!) for it, well.. There may be exceptions but I think Ubuntu pulls from sid not from experimental as a rule. When the package appears in sid it will probably be available in Ubuntu devel version in a short time. And: This is not the point. *I* don't care. The OPs mail simply shows Ubuntus attitude and cluelessless, both reasons for why they have to die. Excuse me but you seem to be coming across as a bit rude. I will give you the benefit of the doubt as I am sure this is not reality. I cannot speak for Jani, however the message I posted was for people who were interested in the subject of the thread (i.e. the person who started it and anyone else who wanted more info). So please do not feel that we are pestering you, however also please be careful that you don't come across as brash/dismissive. Thanks :) -- Andrew ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] getting LO into debian
Andrew thats the problem with this medium today of emails and chats its hard to gauge ones emotions. i have to agree that there are some Ubuntu ops that might have a stick shove a little far up their backsides. Now I'm stopping there. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [PATCH] improve style according to cppcheck
Hi *, On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Takeshi Abe t...@fixedpoint.jp wrote: [cppcheck patches] I'm curious: Why does cppcheck complain about for i++ and suggests/demands pre-increment instead (for ... ++i)? Is there any noticable difference? ciao Christian ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] getting LO into debian
The OPs mail simply shows Ubuntus attitude and cluelessless, both reasons for why they have to die. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g#t=1m20s ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [PATCH] improve style according to cppcheck
Hi Christian, On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 19:09:36 +0100, Christian Lohmaier lohmaier+libreoff...@googlemail.com wrote: I'm curious: Why does cppcheck complain about for i++ and suggests/demands pre-increment instead (for ... ++i)? Is there any noticable difference? Yes, see: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/operator-overloading.html#faq-13.14 http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/operator-overloading.html#faq-13.15 IIRC Scott Meyers' More Effective C++ also elaborates on it. Corollary: we should prefer ++C to C++ to call the language :) Cheers, -- Takeshi Abe ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [PATCH] improve style according to cppcheck
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Christian Lohmaier lohmaier+libreoff...@googlemail.com wrote: Hi *, On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Takeshi Abe t...@fixedpoint.jp wrote: [cppcheck patches] I'm curious: Why does cppcheck complain about for i++ and suggests/demands pre-increment instead (for ... ++i)? Is there any noticable difference? In my opinion: If there is a noticeable difference -- in a place where the 2 forms are indeed interchangeable -- then this is a bug to be filed with the compiler. And if they are not interchangeable in the context, then cppcheck should be silent Norbert ciao Christian ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] question about cppcheck for libreoffice.boldandbusted.com
Hello, libreoffice.boldandbusted.com is a great idea, but what's the version cppcheck used for libreoffice.boldandbusted.com ? I ask this because cppcheck has sometimes false positives. For example, lately i had opened a tracker (#2235: false Resource leak) and today it's corrected. It could be useful to know the date of the last update at the beginning of the report. Julien. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] Compilation error
Hello, I use now rawbuild to compile. I updated repositories 2 hours ago and i have this (even after a rm -rf unxlngi6.pro/) I use this to compile : ./autogen.sh --with-num-cpus=1 --without-junit --disable-kde make Must i do a make clean ? ... languages en-US ... ... analyzing files ... ... analyzing files with flag ARCHIVE ... ... analyzing files with flag SUBST_FILENAME ... ... analyzing files with flag SCPZIP_REPLACE ... ... analyzing files with flag PATCH_SO_NAME ... ... analyzing files with flag HIDDEN ... ... creating preregistered services.rdb ... javavm.uno.so javaloader.uno.so stocservices.uno.so ... cleaning the output tree ... ... removing directory /tmp/ooopackaging/i_143241290894341 ... ** ERROR: ERROR: Could not register all components for file services.rdb (gid_Starregistry_Services_Rdb)! in function: create_services_rdb ** ** ERROR: Saved logfile: /home/serval/libreoffice-source/build/clone/bootstrap/instsetoo_native/unxlngi6.pro/LibreOffice/archive/logging/en-US/log_OOO330_en-US.log ** Sat Nov 27 22:46:10 2010 (00:29 min.) dmake: Error code 255, while making 'openoffice_en-US.archive' --- Oh dear - something failed during the build - sorry ! For more help with debugging build errors, please see the section in: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development it seems that the error is inside 'instsetoo_native', please re-run build inside this module to isolate the error and/or test your fix: --- /bin/bash cd /home/serval/libreoffice-source/build/rawbuild source ./LinuxX86Env.Set.sh cd instsetoo_native build when the problem is isolated and fixed exit and re-run 'make' from the top-level sometimes (sadly) it is necessary to rm -Rf unxlngi6.pro in a module. Julien. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] question about cppcheck for libreoffice.boldandbusted.com
Hi Julien, It is the git version of cppchcek, which I checkout every few days via Portage. If you find false positives, you should let the cppcheck folks know, and they'll remove it or otherwise correct it (or tell you that it isn't a false positive ;) ). Which tracker are you referencing? cppcheck's bugtracker or LO's? I'll bump cppcheck today. Cheers, Jesse Adelman Bold and Busted LLC http://www.boldandbusted.com/ On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 22:44 +0100, Julien Nabet serval2...@yahoo.fr wrote: Hello, libreoffice.boldandbusted.com is a great idea, but what's the version cppcheck used for libreoffice.boldandbusted.com ? I ask this because cppcheck has sometimes false positives. For example, lately i had opened a tracker (#2235: false Resource leak) and today it's corrected. It could be useful to know the date of the last update at the beginning of the report. Julien. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] question about cppcheck for libreoffice.boldandbusted.com
I've added some code to my report generation scripts to insert the cppcheck git sha1 hash in the title of the report. I had to do a bit of shell trickery to get Gentoo's Portage to give me the hash of the installed cppcheck. It is in the middle of a report run now, so probably in 4-6 hours from this writing will the git sha1 hash show up. I'd love it if the cppcheck-htmlreport was made more flexible (the title/header is getting mighty ugly and ungainly, and I just *love* the HTML in the TITLE tag...), but when/if I have time I'll see if I can hack that to work better and add options. Cheers, Jesse Adelman Bold and Busted LLC http://www.boldandbusted.com/ On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 14:02 -0800, some...@boldandbusted.com wrote: Hi Julien, It is the git version of cppchcek, which I checkout every few days via Portage. If you find false positives, you should let the cppcheck folks know, and they'll remove it or otherwise correct it (or tell you that it isn't a false positive ;) ). Which tracker are you referencing? cppcheck's bugtracker or LO's? I'll bump cppcheck today. Cheers, Jesse Adelman Bold and Busted LLC http://www.boldandbusted.com/ On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 22:44 +0100, Julien Nabet serval2...@yahoo.fr wrote: Hello, libreoffice.boldandbusted.com is a great idea, but what's the version cppcheck used for libreoffice.boldandbusted.com ? I ask this because cppcheck has sometimes false positives. For example, lately i had opened a tracker (#2235: false Resource leak) and today it's corrected. It could be useful to know the date of the last update at the beginning of the report. Julien. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Release criteria
Hi Petr, The blocker criteria would be quite useful ;-) Thank you! For the process to nominate a blocker, is there a specific reason to report a nomination twice (1 in mailing list, 2 in bugzilla)? You may nominate blocker bugs using the libreoffice mailing list. Please use the subject: Nominating bug as blocker for LibO-X.Y.Z release You should also add a dependency to the meta bug: LibO-3.3 - bug #31865 A potential problem of the twice nominating is reporter may forget to do another process after finishing one step. e.g. what if he/she only sends a mail and forget comment on Bugzilla? Then more documentation effort will be needed to keep 2 sets of information 'sync'. A uniform reporting path might make it more manageable. Can we just add libreoffice mailing list to a CC list of the meta bug or something like that. Since the release version is included in the Meta bug title, we would not be likely missing new blocker information in the mailing list. For the detailed bug list, we just need to check the dependency fields by clicking meta bug URL inside the mail. Best wishes, Yifan ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] [PATCH] Fix for bug/feature request i#8288
Also one of the easy hacks.
Patch ensures that after doing replace all the cursor is left at
original position, rather than moved to the position of the last
replacement.
Code contributed under MPL 1.1 / GPLv3+ / LGPLv3+ licenses.
Cheers,
Mattias
From 5f26ecaf56db73b8877808ca716276f1b3245474 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mattias Johnsson m.t.johns...@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 13:37:12 +1100
Subject: [PATCH] Fix for i#12345: Replace all should leave the cursor at original position
---
sw/source/ui/uiview/viewsrch.cxx |9 +
1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sw/source/ui/uiview/viewsrch.cxx b/sw/source/ui/uiview/viewsrch.cxx
index 09782b0..1d68817 100644
--- a/sw/source/ui/uiview/viewsrch.cxx
+++ b/sw/source/ui/uiview/viewsrch.cxx
@@ -286,6 +286,10 @@ void SwView::ExecSearch(SfxRequest rReq, BOOL bNoMessage)
{
SwSearchOptions aOpts( pWrtShell, pSrchItem-GetBackward() );
+// Fix for i#12345: Replace all should leave the cursor at the place it was
+// before executing the command, rather than at the site of the final replacement.
+// To do this take note of the current cursor position before replace all begins:
+SwPosition TmpPointPos = *pWrtShell-GetSwCrsr()-GetPoint();
if( !pSrchItem-GetSelection() )
{
@@ -305,8 +309,13 @@ void SwView::ExecSearch(SfxRequest rReq, BOOL bNoMessage)
SwWait aWait( *GetDocShell(), TRUE );
pWrtShell-StartAllAction();
nFound = FUNC_Search( aOpts );
+
+// i#12345: Now that everything has been replaced, restore the original cursor position.
+*(pWrtShell-GetSwCrsr()-GetPoint()) = TmpPointPos;
+
pWrtShell-EndAllAction();
}
+
rReq.SetReturnValue(SfxBoolItem(nSlot, nFound != 0 ULONG_MAX != nFound));
if( !nFound )
{
--
1.7.1
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] question about cppcheck for libreoffice.boldandbusted.com
Hi Jesse I was talking about cppcheck bugtracker. There has been a fix for the tracker #2235, this one has been corrected yesterday. About false positives, i've created 3 trackers on cppcheck for the moment. 2 have been fixed : #2235 i talked about and #2210 which has been corrected by the cppcheck guys the 18/11. It seems like the other one (#2217) has been corrected with other fixes since they didn't reproduce it. Julien. Le 27/11/2010 23:02, some...@boldandbusted.com a écrit : Hi Julien, It is the git version of cppchcek, which I checkout every few days via Portage. If you find false positives, you should let the cppcheck folks know, and they'll remove it or otherwise correct it (or tell you that it isn't a false positive ;) ). Which tracker are you referencing? cppcheck's bugtracker or LO's? I'll bump cppcheck today. Cheers, Jesse Adelman Bold and Busted LLC http://www.boldandbusted.com/ On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 22:44 +0100, Julien Nabetserval2...@yahoo.fr wrote: Hello, libreoffice.boldandbusted.com is a great idea, but what's the version cppcheck used for libreoffice.boldandbusted.com ? I ask this because cppcheck has sometimes false positives. For example, lately i had opened a tracker (#2235: false Resource leak) and today it's corrected. It could be useful to know the date of the last update at the beginning of the report. Julien. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
