GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 661231
Minor cleanups for ShellUtil
Last modified: 2012-04-25 22:01:01 UTC
see patches
Created attachment 198570 [details] [review] shell-util: Remove shell_util_icon_from_string GJS doesn't need to be able to represent interfaces for you to be able to access an interface method, so Gio.icon_new_for_string works fine.
Created attachment 198571 [details] [review] shell-util: Fix a bogus annotation Creating a new instance is not (transfer none), unless I'm missing somehting here...
Review of attachment 198570 [details] [review]: Even though this reveals both a Gjs bug (should be able to represent Gio.Icon as a class object) and a gobject-introspection bug (new_for_string should be a constructor/static method for Gio.Icon), the patch is indeed correct. (My accepted-commit_now is only an indication of the validity of the patch. I don't know where/when you can effectively commit)
Review of attachment 198571 [details] [review]: Seems correct... Did you see a leak in valgrind?
Review of attachment 198571 [details] [review]: No, I was just staring at the code and saw this...
Attachment 198570 [details] pushed as 786cfbd - shell-util: Remove shell_util_icon_from_string Attachment 198571 [details] pushed as 67b7b7a - shell-util: Fix a bogus annotation Pushed, thanks for reviewing!
there is still one Shell.util_icon_from left in telepathyClient.js, reopening (it is causing exception when loosing telepathy connections).
Created attachment 199816 [details] [review] telepathy-client: Replace shell_util_new_from_string The function has been removed in commit 786cfbd3976, but one user was overlooked when replacing it. Here we go ...
Review of attachment 199816 [details] [review]: I couldn't find it because of my cleanup in bug #661236. Go for it.
Attachment 199816 [details] pushed as b62f5ef - telepathy-client: Replace shell_util_new_from_string
gnome-3-2 branch is missing the fix namely b62f5ef07d87db7835fa753fe1774a5ed32d871d .
reopening, since it is still missing in 3.2 branch, could we get an approval for it ?
(In reply to comment #12) > reopening, since it is still missing in 3.2 branch, could we get an approval > for it ? I guess, but there are no plans for further 3.2.x releases ...