Re: dogtail [PATCH] Add support for only searching among 'showing' nodes.

[Vitezslav Humpa <vhumpa redhat com>]

Heya,

Your patch came up passing with both versions of python and has been merged
into the master.

We've been filtering to .showing = True before too, usually via lambdas as pred
given to the findChildren when needed. This patch makes it more straightforward
for some though as well as it is configurable.

By default, the config option should remain False however, we do need to search
for non-showing elements quite often for various reasons - but we also have
to keep the compatibility.

Nice patch,
Thanks.

----- Original Message -----
> Vitezslav Humpa:
> > Hi anonym!
> >
> > You've caught me just before departing on my this time mainly offline
> > weekend :)
>
> New week now! :)
>
> > We will be moving the 'official' repo of dogtail from fedoraproject
> > to gitlab.com soon, so merge requests there will be the best way of
> > contribution. It's already setup and synced, with CI for patches So
> > meanwhile I have submitted your patch there in 'showingonly' branch
> > for the unittests to crunch.
>
> I see failures in
>
>   https://gitlab.com/dogtail/dogtail/builds/1051864
>
> for example,
>
>   ======================================================================
>   ERROR: test_action_on_insensitive (test_procedural.TestActions)
>   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>   Traceback (most recent call last):
>     File
> "/home/test/builds/b11296d9/0/dogtail/dogtail/tests/test_procedural.py",
> line 21, in setUp
>       self.pid = run('gtk3-demo')
>     File
> "/home/test/builds/b11296d9/0/dogtail/dogtail/dogtail/procedural.py",
> line 411, in run
>       pid = utilsRun(application + ' ' + arguments, appName=appName)
>     File
> "/home/test/builds/b11296d9/0/dogtail/dogtail/dogtail/utils.py", line
> 111, in run
>       if child.name == appName:
>   Error: atspi_error: The application no longer exists (0)
>
> So, as I understand it, `self.pid = run('gtk3-demo')` just fails, and
> that is in fact the first thing that is run in this test so there is no
> prior state that interferes. AFAICT my changes do not touch the code
> path taken here so I do not really see how it can be related. Any way,
> let's not "blame the tests" just yet. :) Well, since the move to Gitlab
> was recent, perhaps the CI setup isn't 100% reliable yet?
>
> Clearly I should have tried running the test suite myself before
> submitting this pull request. I do not run GNOME myself, so before I
> potentially waste my time, is there anything preventing me from just
> setting up a chroot with the deps and run the tests in there?
>
> Cheers!