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 604289 - Please permit progress pages to be final in a dialog
Please permit progress pages to be final in a dialog
Product: gtk+
Classification: Platform
Component: Widget: Other
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: gtk-bugs
Depends on:
Reported: 2009-12-10 16:12 UTC by Sven Herzberg
Modified: 2009-12-10 21:38 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---

Imaginary Progress Page (12.53 KB, image/png)
2009-12-10 16:12 UTC, Sven Herzberg
Proposed patch (3.05 KB, patch)
2009-12-10 16:36 UTC, Sven Herzberg
none Details | Review
Proposed patch v2 (4.48 KB, patch)
2009-12-10 17:06 UTC, Sven Herzberg
accepted-commit_now Details | Review

Description Sven Herzberg 2009-12-10 16:12:43 UTC
Created attachment 149529 [details]
Imaginary Progress Page

I'd like to have an assistant like this (listing page types):


I tried to workaround with using a SUMMARY instead of the PROGRESS page to satisfy GtkAssistant's requirement of having CONFIRM or SUMMARY as the last page. When I did that, I realized that I cannot simply make the close button insensitive by using gtk_assistant_set_page_complete().

I'd really like to having having an extra page along the lines of "as you could see on the last page, we're done, please click one more time".

IMHO, GTK+ should let me provide such an assistant workflow. I'm coming up with a patch that makes the close button insensitive for SUMMARY when the page is not done (and that turns on page-complete when adding a summary page).
Comment 1 Sven Herzberg 2009-12-10 16:36:39 UTC
Created attachment 149533 [details] [review]
Proposed patch
Comment 2 Sven Herzberg 2009-12-10 17:02:52 UTC
Forget the patch, I'll come up with a working one.
Comment 3 Sven Herzberg 2009-12-10 17:06:51 UTC
Created attachment 149534 [details] [review]
Proposed patch v2

This patch actually works (and has modifications to a manual test case to verify the changes).
Comment 4 Sven Herzberg 2009-12-10 17:09:32 UTC
The only construct that now breaks is this:


Is that save enough?
Comment 5 Matthias Clasen 2009-12-10 20:00:45 UTC
Comment on attachment 149534 [details] [review]
Proposed patch v2

Looks ok to me