After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 350552 - atk-bridge doesn't use param values for children_changed signal
atk-bridge doesn't use param values for children_changed signal
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: at-spi
Classification: Platform
Component: atkbridge
unspecified
Other All
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: bill.haneman
bill.haneman
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2006-08-09 09:54 UTC by Ginn Chen
Modified: 2008-08-25 03:15 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.13/2.14


Attachments
patch (1.20 KB, patch)
2006-08-09 09:55 UTC, Ginn Chen
none Details | Review
patch v2 (1009 bytes, patch)
2006-08-09 11:02 UTC, Ginn Chen
none Details | Review
patch v3 (1009 bytes, patch)
2006-08-10 06:41 UTC, Ginn Chen
committed Details | Review
patch v3 update (1.05 KB, patch)
2008-02-27 12:19 UTC, Ginn Chen
committed Details | Review

Description Ginn Chen 2006-08-09 09:54:38 UTC
Please describe the problem:
bridge.c doesn't get values from param_values
It just tries to use atk_object_ref_accessible_child.
detail1 always equals to 0.

Steps to reproduce:
1. use at-poke to log events or use event-listener-test
2. open a new dialog
3. 


Actual results:
children-added/removed event always has 0 0 for details, and child is always the first child of parent object

Expected results:


Does this happen every time?
Yes

Other information:
Comment 1 Ginn Chen 2006-08-09 09:55:47 UTC
Created attachment 70530 [details] [review]
patch
Comment 2 Ginn Chen 2006-08-09 11:02:14 UTC
Created attachment 70537 [details] [review]
patch v2

GOK core dumps with last patch.
So I made this one to workaround it.
Comment 3 Ginn Chen 2006-08-10 06:41:00 UTC
Created attachment 70616 [details] [review]
patch v3

The first patch was my fault.
This one should be OK.
Comment 4 bill.haneman 2006-08-21 13:29:44 UTC
Comment on attachment 70616 [details] [review]
patch v3

Thanks Ginn!
Comment 5 Ginn Chen 2008-02-27 12:19:22 UTC
Created attachment 106061 [details] [review]
patch v3 update

Oops, the last patch v3 actually is still v2.
Repost patch v3 updated to trunk.

It will improve the performance.
Comment 6 Li Yuan 2008-02-28 02:47:15 UTC
Patch looks OK. There is no candidate release for GNOME 2.22, so I'd like to commit the patch into GNOME 2.23.
Comment 7 Frederic Crozat 2008-08-22 12:32:10 UTC
reopeneing bug, last patch was not committed