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 511625 - Application role should be ROLE_APPLICATION, not ROLE_EXTENDED
Application role should be ROLE_APPLICATION, not ROLE_EXTENDED
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: at-spi
Classification: Platform
Component: javabridge
unspecified
Other All
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: Jeff Cai
Jeff Cai
Depends on:
Blocks: 509683
 
 
Reported: 2008-01-23 20:41 UTC by Willie Walker
Modified: 2008-02-06 03:51 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---

Attachments
Patch to make the role of an application be ROLE_APPLICATION (458 bytes, patch)
2008-01-23 20:46 UTC, Willie Walker 		committed Details | Review

Description Willie Walker 2008-01-23 20:41:50 UTC 
When looking at the getRole() of an application object, we're getting ROLE_EXTENDED and not ROLE_APPLICATION.  To add to this confusion, getRoleName() is correct and returns 'application'.
Comment 1 Willie Walker 2008-01-23 20:46:55 UTC 
Created attachment 103575 [details] [review]
Patch to make the role of an application be ROLE_APPLICATION

This modifies impl/org/GNOME/Accessibility/ApplicationImpl.java to make the role be ROLE_APPLICATION instead of ROLE_EXTENDED.  Seems to solve the problem, but I have no idea why it was ROLE_EXTENDED in the first place.  ROLE_EXTENDED seems so obviously wrong that I'm guessing it was done that way for a purpose, unless perhaps ROLE_APPLICATION was added to the AT-SPI idl after this code was written.

The svn history seems to have been lost, though, with the first comment being for revision 58 from billh:

http://svn.gnome.org/viewvc/java-access-bridge/trunk/impl/org/GNOME/Accessibility/ApplicationImpl.java?view=annotate
Comment 2 Willie Walker 2008-01-29 18:09:32 UTC 
Jeff - please review this bug for GNOME 2.21.91.  It would be a nice thing to get fixed if we could.
Comment 3 Jeff Cai 2008-01-30 06:05:21 UTC 
I can't see any reason why it was ROLE_EXTENDED. Could you please commit your patch?
Comment 4 Willie Walker 2008-02-06 03:51:54 UTC 
(In reply to comment #3)
> I can't see any reason why it was ROLE_EXTENDED. Could you please commit your
> patch?
> 

Thank you!  Committed.  Please remember to make a new release (and thanks ahead of time for doing so :-)).