GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 643683
Something broke _NET_WM_PING?
Last modified: 2011-03-18 18:13:07 UTC
Appears that _NET_WM_PING isn't working correctly for gnome-shell. FReported by Mike Schmidt in: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=681504 I was able to reproduce in a quick test with a random GTK+ program. I'd guess one or the other of: - Something broke in event handling - Something broke with actually showing the dialog First step would be to test raw mutter without gnome-shell. == original report == Description of problem: Metacity and compiz could detect when an application was unresponsive for several seconds and could offer the user to force quit the window. Mutter/gnome-shell does not seem to do that. Clicking the close button of an unresponsive window has no effect. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): gnome-shell-2.91.90-2.fc15.x86_64 mutter-2.91.90-2.fc15.x86_64 How reproducible: always Steps to Reproduce: 1. run the attached reproducer (a simple pygtk application) 2. click on the "Hang this application" button 3. try to close the window Actual results: Nothing happens, the window won't go away. Expected results: The window manager should offer me to force the closing of the window / kill the unresponsive application.
I can't reproduce with gnome-shell/mutter from git, and a python gtk2 test program stopped with ^z. After clicking on close, and waiting two seconds, I see a "Force exit" window.
*** Bug 643900 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
It is still reproducible today with: gnome-shell-2.91.91-1.fc15.x86_64 mutter-2.91.91-1.fc15.x86_64 No "Force exit" window ever appears here.
Created attachment 183626 [details] [review] Update meta_show_dialog for gtk's removal of --screen gtk3 no longer has the --screen command-line argument, which mutter was passing to zenity. Use --display (with an explicitly-specified screen number) instead.
Comment on attachment 183626 [details] [review] Update meta_show_dialog for gtk's removal of --screen oops, I just accidentally committed this... someone figure out if I should revert
Review of attachment 183626 [details] [review]: Looks fine to me. (Might have suggested passing in the MetaScreen for a bit of type safety, but not worth a fixup patch on top.)