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 426336 - [pending] need to refactor Gecko.py's find{Next, Previous}Role
[pending] need to refactor Gecko.py's find{Next, Previous}Role
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: orca
Classification: Applications
Component: general
2.19.x
Other All
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: Orca Maintainers
Orca Maintainers
Depends on:
Blocks: 404403
 
 
Reported: 2007-04-04 19:22 UTC by Joanmarie Diggs (IRC: joanie)
Modified: 2007-04-13 16:55 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.17/2.18

Attachments
patch to refactor -- and then some :-) (14.67 KB, patch)
2007-04-04 19:29 UTC, Joanmarie Diggs (IRC: joanie) 		committed Details | Review

Description Joanmarie Diggs (IRC: joanie) 2007-04-04 19:22:21 UTC 
As discussed with Will today:

1. find{Next, Previous}Role should return an object rather than set the caret position.  All of the go{Next, Previous} methods do the setting.

2. find{Next, Previous}Role should be able to take a starting object as an optional argument so that we can keep looking for a certain role from a given location.  Otherwise, we can only find the immediate {Next, Previous} one and that might not be the one we're after.
Comment 1 Joanmarie Diggs (IRC: joanie) 2007-04-04 19:29:26 UTC 
Created attachment 85821 [details] [review]
patch to refactor -- and then some :-)

This patch does the refactoring described.  It also allows for the cleaning up of some of the go{Next, Previous} methods.  

But wait, there's more!  It turns out that in Firefox you can have two different objects whose role is ROLE_LIST:  (un)ordered lists and form field lists.  D'oh!  L and Shift+L were operating under the assumption that ROLE_LIST meant the former.  Since I was cleaning that section up anyway.... Now we check for the latter and ignore them.

Will, I think we're good on this one.
Comment 2 Willie Walker 2007-04-09 22:28:29 UTC 
> Will, I think we're good on this one.

I think we are, too.  Thanks!
Comment 3 Mike Pedersen 2007-04-13 16:45:52 UTC 
I havn't noticed any regressions from this.  I have no problem with closing it.