Re: [Gimp-developer] Bug 155733 - discussion of approach (bug: need to check return values of gimp_drawable_mask_bounds())

[Neil <neildevbox gmail com>]

Bump......? Any core devs able to comment pls?

On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Neil <neildevbox gmail com> wrote:

Have looked some more at the various patches in the bugzilla list.

After extra scrutiny of Luidnel's patch (9b6c9e1), I now realise that this is the very patch where Michael Natterer comments at the top that he has altered it so as to not "spit messages", but the patch then makes iwarp.c do precisely that. I am now suspecting that iwarp.c got missed while the patch was being edited... :-)  Correct?

In comment 26 (https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=155733#c26), Michael says that gimpressionist *should* warn, as it's interactive-only. But what does interactive-only mean? I initially took it to mean that if you tried to "repeat" it would bring back up the dialog box. Gimpressionist doesn't do that though - it simply reapplies the same effect to a new selection each time you "repeat". In contrast, iwarp would fit my concept of what "interactive-only" means, as if you try to "repeat", it *does* bring up the dialog box, so it seems that it really can't ever function without a dialog box.

I've also noticed that a whole bunch of plugins do issue a g_message() before they bail out (including I think all of the ones patched by Bill Skaggs).

So... I could use some guidance from core devs here (i.e. the people who'll be accepting/rejecting any patches). My own preference would certainly be for all plugins to issue a warning (in the form of a g_message() call or even a dialog) if they are about to do nothing because _mask_intersect() returns false. But if there is some argument against this we should patch the rest to stop doing it for consistency.