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 687688 - Problems with multiple non-nested main loops
Problems with multiple non-nested main loops
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 685453
Product: gtk+
Classification: Platform
Component: Widget: Other
unspecified
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: gtk-bugs
gtk-bugs
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2012-11-05 21:08 UTC by Daniel Narvaez
Modified: 2012-11-05 21:15 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Attachments
Testcase (333 bytes, text/x-python)
2012-11-05 21:10 UTC, Daniel Narvaez
Details

Description Daniel Narvaez 2012-11-05 21:08:08 UTC
Accessibility (and possibly other stuff) breaks if you try to use multiple non-nested main loops. I've seen this in an application that has a structure like this

1 Create and show window1
2 Enter the mainloop
3 Quit the mainloop when window1 is closed

[Accessibility breaks here]

4 Create and show window2
5 Enter the mainloop
6 Quit the mainloop when window2 is closed

I'm not sure if this is even supported or if there is a sensible use case for it. 
Though if it's not supported I think it would be good to document it (I haven't looked too much but it's not mentioned in gtk_main and gtk_main_quit docs) and, more importantly, to show some error if an application tries to do it.
Comment 1 Daniel Narvaez 2012-11-05 21:10:05 UTC
Created attachment 228189 [details]
Testcase

Attaching a test case. I'm using sniff (from dogtail) to look at the accessibility tree. While the first window shows up in the tree, the second one doesn't.
Comment 2 Cosimo Cecchi 2012-11-05 21:15:25 UTC
Thanks for the bug report. This particular bug has already been reported into our bug tracking system, but please feel free to report any further bugs you find.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 685453 ***