[07:03] <dholbach> good morning
[08:33] <nerochiaro> oSoMoN: https://bugs.launchpad.net/webbrowser-app/+bug/1459564 can you please confirm this ?
[08:33] <oSoMoN> nerochiaro, confirmed
[08:34] <nerochiaro> oSoMoN: also just wanted to confirm that you are aware of the 2 MRs that i have pending, find in page which should need only to verify your comments were fixed and keyboard navigation which needs full review
[08:34] <oSoMoN> nerochiaro, they’re on my TO-DO list
[08:34] <nerochiaro> oSoMoN: thank you
[11:37] <kalikiana> zsombi: t1mp FYI https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-ui-toolkit/+bug/1459632
[11:38] <t1mp> kalikiana: thanks for looking at it
[11:40] <zsombi> kalikiana: kthx
[11:41] <t1mp> zsombi: how should I access the theme inside a style?
[11:41] <t1mp> zsombi: styledItem.theme
[11:41] <t1mp> ?
[11:41] <t1mp> or just theme?
[11:41] <zsombi> t1mp: yes
[11:41] <zsombi> t1mp: styledItem.theme
[11:41] <zsombi> t1mp: why would you need that?
[11:41] <t1mp> I was using 'theme' only and that seems to work
[11:42] <t1mp> zsombi:     property color sectionColor: styledItem.theme.palette.selected.backgroundText
[11:42] <zsombi> t1mp: aaah... well, theme.palette.selected.backgroundText is also enough
[11:43] <zsombi> t1mp: as each style component is created inside the StyledItem's context
[11:44] <zsombi> t1mp: fyi, StyleHints started to work :)
[11:44] <t1mp> zsombi: cool :)
[11:44] <t1mp> zsombi: I was just wondering what's the cleanest way to refer to theme
[11:44] <t1mp> styledItem.theme may be more clear, but we already use theme in many places (without styledItem prefix)
[11:44] <zsombi> t1mp: theme is enough, no need to use the styledItem
[11:45] <t1mp> ok
[11:45] <t1mp> unit tests are done.
[11:45] <t1mp> a new component takes two days to write, then 1 day unit tests and 1 day autopilot tests...
[11:46] <zsombi> t1mp: I'm adding unit tests as well :) and docs ;P
[11:46] <t1mp> yes I hope you do :)
[11:56] <zsombi> :P
[12:03] <DS-McGuire> dholbach, Sorry I missed you yesterday
[12:03] <DS-McGuire> I like what that guy had to say
[12:04] <DS-McGuire> I had thought about the search bar going into the top header however I didn't see it in the Ubuntu HTML5 api like it is with the QML so I guess I could make it, can't be that hard. Also the back button being missing is a known problem
[12:05] <DS-McGuire> well not a problem, I didn't add it yet
[12:08] <dholbach> you can always ask the guys in #ubuntu-webapps like dbarth or alex-abreu
[12:57] <kalikiana> mzanetti|run: I can't reproduce your problem https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-ui-toolkit/+bug/1413801 mind you the snippet was not a complete app, so if you did anything special I wouldn't see it
[13:13] <mzanetti> kalikiana, odd... I thought I had pasted a complete standalone example. I'll prepare it for you. sorry for this
[13:28] <DS-McGuire> dholbach, Sorry I didn't see the notification. I will ask them now, are they the guys who help with the HTML5 API?
[13:28] <dholbach> yep
[13:29] <DS-McGuire> Awesome, thanks.
[13:42] <kalikiana> mzanetti: actually I found it. and now this is really odd. as soon as I set a backgroundColor on the MainView I see the issue - if I don't all is fine
[13:43] <kalikiana> what color doesn't matter even
[13:45] <mzanetti> kalikiana, right, yes, it's about a non-standard background color
[13:45] <mzanetti> still odd that my example only contains half of it :(
[13:47] <kalikiana> mzanetti: I realized afterwards you mentioned the dark background - which I mistook for the black overlay from the dialog
[13:48] <kalikiana> but thart has nothing to do with this bug
[13:49] <kalikiana> mzanetti: I assume your dialog also has modal: false originally
[13:49] <mzanetti> kalikiana, no, I don't think I ever used "modal: false"
[13:49]  * mzanetti wasn't aware of that
[13:50] <kalikiana> mzanetti: if you don't you would have a black overlay hiding the mainview
[13:50] <kalikiana> and that is true even for rtm
[13:50] <mzanetti> yes, what's the problem with that?
[13:50] <kalikiana> mzanetti: the problem is that I mistook the "dark background" for that overlay :-)
[13:51] <mzanetti> oohhh
[13:51] <mzanetti> now I get it
[13:51] <mzanetti> yeah... again, sorry for being unclear :(
[13:51] <mzanetti> will do better next time
[13:52] <kalikiana> shit happens, at least I got it in the end - now the real fun begins in tracking the bug down :-D
[13:52] <mzanetti> heh :)
[13:52] <mzanetti> good luck :)
[14:10] <seb128> does anyone has an example of app that got migrated from Ubuntu.Components.ListItems to the new ListItem?
[14:11] <sverzegnassi> seb128, Ubuntu Touch Tweak Tool uses that. https://launchpad.net/ubuntu-touch-tweak-tool
[14:13] <seb128> sverzegnassi, thanks
[14:14] <seb128> sverzegnassi, doesn't seem to
[14:14] <seb128> sverzegnassi, http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-touch-tweak-tool-devs/ubuntu-touch-tweak-tool/trunk/view/head:/app/components/ListItems/SectionDivider.qml
[14:14] <seb128>     ListItem.ThinDivider {
[14:14] <seb128> that's the old one
[14:15] <seb128> "import Ubuntu.Components.ListItems 1.0 as ListItem"
[14:19] <sverzegnassi> seb128, that one comes from dekko. it's just the divider. the other list item in that folder derives from the UITK1.2 component
[14:20] <sverzegnassi> http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-touch-tweak-tool-devs/ubuntu-touch-tweak-tool/trunk/view/head:/app/ui/mainPage/behaviourTab/AppsScopeFavs.qml
[14:20] <seb128> sverzegnassi, right, I'm trying to figure out how to do a divider with the new component
[14:21] <sverzegnassi> seb128, here there's also an example of the drag&drop feature :)
[14:21] <sverzegnassi> I'd go for a Rectangle
[14:23] <seb128> that creates a white line
[14:24] <seb128> or I need to set a color but it doesn't look the same
[14:24] <nerochiaro> oSoMoN: quick question, in the webbrowser AuthenticationDialog.qml, where is the "model" property supposed to come from ? I can't seem to find it declared or documented anywhere
[14:25] <DanChapman> seb128: doesnt the new ListItem have a divider attached property. Something like divider: {
[14:25] <DanChapman> color fom: colorTo: }
[14:25] <DanChapman> *colorFrom
[14:26] <seb128> DanChapman, it does but I don't have a listitem in my column
[14:27] <seb128> I've a grid with icons
[14:27] <seb128> then I need a line
[14:27] <seb128> I guess I can use a rectangle tweaked then
[14:27] <seb128> with a height of 1
[14:28] <oSoMoN> nerochiaro, model is the contextModel provided by oxide, see e.g. http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~oxide-developers/oxide/oxide.trunk/view/head:/qt/quick/oxide_qquick_javascript_dialog.cc#L58
[14:30] <oSoMoN> nerochiaro, the AuthenticationDialog component was being instantiated by QtWebKit, so it was setting a model property on the item to allow interacting with it. We have a similar mechanism in oxide for various dialogs and for the context menu, so you might want to implement something similar for the authentication
[14:30] <oSoMoN> (if having oxide instantiate a component for the authentication makes sense, maybe it doesn’t and a simple signal is good enough of an API)
[14:31] <nerochiaro> oSoMoN: more specifically from what i see on that code you linked it was setting a context property, not a property on the item. but yes, as you say in my case I have a signal to request authentication and two methods,one to send credentials and one to cancel
[14:32] <nerochiaro> oSoMoN: so I will alter that dialog to call the methods and show it via PopupUtils.open
[14:32] <nerochiaro> oSoMoN: unless you don't agree with the API i just mentioned
[14:33] <oSoMoN> nerochiaro, can you show me the code for the oxide API?
[14:35] <nerochiaro> signal void basicAuthenticationRequested(); slot void cancelBasicAuthenticationRequest(); slot void sendBasicAuthenticationCredentials(const QString& username, const QString& password);
[14:35] <nerochiaro> oSoMoN: ^
[14:36] <nerochiaro> oSoMoN: but if you prefer I am happy having a property QQmlComponent* alertDialog
[14:36] <nerochiaro> oSoMoN: er, authenticationDialog
[14:36] <oSoMoN> nerochiaro, can’t the signal carry a BasicAuthenticationRequest object as a parameter that would be used to cancel/acknowledge the request? that would avoid cluttering the WebView API with two extra slots
[14:37] <nerochiaro> oSoMoN: i can do that, i need to add a parameter that has the realm and the host requesting authentication anyway, so i might as well add these too
[14:37] <oSoMoN> nerochiaro, see how Chris did it for the WebView.mediaAccessPermissionRequested API
[14:38] <nerochiaro> oSoMoN: ah, good tip. will look. thanks
[14:38] <oSoMoN> I think we want something similar
[15:00] <balloons> dholbach, so anything else for https://code.launchpad.net/~nskaggs/help-app/functional-test-template/+merge/260206?
[15:01] <dholbach> balloons, I'm working with fgimenez to get selenium in
[15:01] <dholbach> I really wouldn't like to ask people to add yet another PPA
[15:01] <dholbach> apart from that it looks great to me
[15:01] <balloons> dholbach, ok, so you'll hold on selenium in the archive?
[15:02] <balloons> would you consider holding on making it a part of the build, but landing the template?
[15:02] <dholbach> I'm not sure I understand
[15:03] <balloons> ie, atm these tests won't run as part of the build. Jenkins doesn't need selenium, nor does anyone wanting to work on the app (there's no functional tests)
[15:03] <dholbach> ok, now I see
[15:03] <balloons> once selenium lands, we can add the build-dep, add it to make, etc
[15:03] <dholbach> I just brought it up because it was mentioned in the HACKING doc
[15:03] <balloons> right, I would leave that for now, and remove it as part of incorporating things
[15:12] <dholbach> ok, wfm
[15:27] <dholbach> balloons, I'll merge https://code.launchpad.net/~nskaggs/help-app/functional-test-template/+merge/260206 and add a small comment to the HACKING doc afterwards
[15:28] <balloons> woot!
[15:35] <dholbach> dpm, sorry... I found an issue
[15:35] <dholbach> err, sorry.
[15:35] <dholbach> I meant balloons
[15:35] <dholbach> added it to the bottom of https://code.launchpad.net/~nskaggs/help-app/functional-test-template/+merge/260206?
[15:36] <mzanetti> popey, meeting time
[15:36] <balloons> ohh I see, first you bait me, then :-)
[15:36] <popey> mzanetti: ooh
[15:37] <balloons> dholbach, on the web version, that's a good point.
[15:48] <balloons> dholbach, so I guess we would need to choose which one to launch. In theory either should work, and we can launch either one
[15:49] <dholbach> let me take a closer look
[15:49] <balloons> we launch via ubuntu-html5-app-launcher
[15:50] <balloons> it does expect and index.html; i'm not sure if it's possible to override that or not. The web version is all localized, so there's no index.html
[15:50] <dholbach> maybe we could add a target for it in the Makefile
[15:50] <dholbach> like "make functional-web-test" or "make functional-app-test"
[15:51] <dholbach> and make each depend on the related other make target
[15:52] <balloons> the path is hardcoded, but not reason it couldn't be a variable. That said, I guess it would really be two test suites eh?
[15:52] <dholbach> it could figure out which path exists and take it from there
[15:55] <balloons> and if both? you think the testsuites would be the same?
[15:56] <balloons> we could also simply make launchers for both and run all tests as a scenario with each launcher feeding into it. In effect, we can run every test that is the same on both as needed within one testsuite
[15:57] <balloons> if there's a specific test that needs only one or the other we can make that as well. It would require both app and web to be built in order to run the full suite ofc
[15:58] <balloons> perhaps I can just modify the mp so it's a little clearer what I mean. I would make 2 classes; one for each testsuite
[15:58] <dholbach> if both, it could run both, yes :)
[18:46] <mhall119> kenvandine: I haven't gotten an actual title for your presentation yet, do you have one?
[18:48] <mhall119> kenvandine: unless "Application Security in Ubuntu" is the title
[18:54] <kenvandine> that was it
[18:54] <kenvandine> unless you have ideas to make it snazzy :)
[18:55] <kenvandine> "Application Security in Ubuntu, why you should care"
[18:55] <kenvandine> mhall119, maybe :)
[18:55] <kenvandine> the key is i want it to be focused on why users should care about our application confinement
[18:58] <mhall119> kenvandine: that sounds good
[18:59] <kenvandine> cool
[18:59] <kenvandine> done!
[20:40] <balloons> mhall119, so is the json for the python scope harness a-ok for you>
[21:34] <mhall119> balloons: haven't run it against the importer yet, sorry, have been trying to finish ubucon stuff
[21:46] <balloons> mhall119, ack, let me know