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 416240 - gnome_keyring_find_items_sync wrapper crashes
gnome_keyring_find_items_sync wrapper crashes
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: gnome-python-desktop
Classification: Deprecated
Component: general
unspecified
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: Gustavo Carneiro
Python bindings maintainers
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2007-03-08 21:48 UTC by Havoc Pennington
Modified: 2007-03-11 16:35 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Attachments
patch (443 bytes, patch)
2007-03-10 12:05 UTC, Gustavo Carneiro
none Details | Review

Description Havoc Pennington 2007-03-08 21:48:54 UTC
I think in .override there should be a "kwargs" 

> %%
> - override gnome_keyring_find_items_sync
> + override gnome_keyring_find_items_sync kwargs

In any case, if you do something like this it crashes:

 ids = gnomekeyring.find_items_sync(gnomekeyring.ITEM_GENERIC_SECRET,
                                               {'whatfor' : whatfor})

incidentally, after asking alex how the heck to use gnomekeyring, my impression is that find_items is essential. The keyring.py example that comes with the python bindings stuffs the "id" in gconf whenever it creates an item; this is pretty much a weird hack, the right thing to do is just find the item again on startup with find_items. No need to use gconf to store the item id.
Comment 1 Gustavo Carneiro 2007-03-10 11:49:33 UTC
Well, the example may be wrong, I'm not sure; but given that gnome-keyring itself comes with _no examples_ at all, this is the best I could do...
Comment 2 Gustavo Carneiro 2007-03-10 12:05:46 UTC
Created attachment 84337 [details] [review]
patch
Comment 3 Gustavo Carneiro 2007-03-10 12:23:19 UTC
Waiting for permission from the release team...
Comment 4 Havoc Pennington 2007-03-11 16:35:05 UTC
Not blaming you, just trying to save future developers some trouble ;-)
thanks for reviewing the patch.