[02:04] <liuxg> in ubuntu qml programming, if I want to put all of the files under a directory into the package, how can I do it? The directory may have sub directories too
[13:34] <timp> ahayzen: we're discussing your comment on https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-ui-toolkit/+bug/1393485
[13:34] <ubot5`> Launchpad bug 1393485 in ubuntu-ui-toolkit (Ubuntu) "[SDK] Need a standard way to make an Icon look disabled" [High,In progress]
[13:34] <Femma> hi ahayzen
[13:34] <timp> Femma: I don't think there is information about showing 'disabled actions' in the header in the design docs
[13:35] <Femma> timp:  ok, so what you guys need from design is this functionality outlined in the header spec?
[13:35] <timp> Femma: but the example that ahayzen gives in the comment is a valid one. In some cases it may be better to not hide disabled actions but to show them greyed out
[13:35] <timp> Femma: what is your opinion on that?
[13:35] <Femma> timp:  sure, we could put in some app design guidelines to address use cases where they would be hidden v greyed out
[13:36] <timp> Femma: we could use some guidelines with motivation when they should be hidden and when greyed out
[13:36] <Femma> timp:  ahayzen I think that would cover it sufficiently
[13:36] <timp> Femma: yes :)
[13:36] <timp> Femma: I think so too, unless ahayzen has more questions
[13:36] <Femma> timp:  ok cool, I'll need a bit of time to do some research and then amend the spec
[13:36] <Femma> ahayzen:  anything else?
[13:37] <timp> Femma, ahayzen: using the UITK it is already possible to hide or disable an action in the header by setting the 'visible' or 'enabled' property to false. So the rest of the implementation is up to the app developers.
[13:38] <Femma> timp:  makes sense, I guess what is being asked for then is more app design guidelines then actual functionality that needs to be implemented
[13:38] <ahayzen> timp, yeah we were using the enabled property before, but that broke in the UITK landing
[13:38] <ahayzen> timp, eg when in multiselect and you have selected nothing, it makes sense to disable the actions but still have them visible so the user knows what they could perform
[13:40] <timp> ahayzen: okay, that is fixed in the (second) MR attached to the bug. It still needs to be reviewed so I guess that will be in OTA11
[13:41] <ahayzen> Femma, i don't think there is anything else, some app guidelines when to do visible vs greyed maybe useful. From what we have done you tend to set them disabled unless the action is when the view is in a different state
[13:41] <ahayzen> timp, ok :-)
[13:42] <Femma> ahayzen:  ok thanks
[13:42] <Femma> timp:  anything else needed from me?
[13:42] <timp> Femma: no, thanks. :)
[13:42] <ahayzen> \o/
[13:42] <Femma> :)
[15:27] <popey> beuno: "Can not create a new package with name hackerweb, multiple origins for hackerweb are not allowed" - is that intentional for clicks? It never used to be the case. (mhall119 uploaded an app, and I just uploaded one with the same appname)
[15:27] <beuno> popey, not sure
[15:28] <beuno> popey, maybe!
[15:28] <beuno> let me check with nessita
[15:28] <popey> I have to take your first answer I'm afraid!
[15:28] <beuno> "not"?  :)
[15:38] <popey> jdstrand: i have a web (node) app which is failing in the store (which passed locally) with 'binary' files inside. They're not binary, they're javascript :)
[15:39] <popey> jdstrand: https://myapps.developer.ubuntu.com/dev/click-apps/4800/rev/1/
[15:56] <jdstrand> popey: can you request a manual review and file a bug against the review tools, attaching the click?
[15:56] <popey> jdstrand: sure
[16:03] <popey> jdstrand: bug 1564488 and set manual review, thanks.
[16:03] <ubot5`> bug 1564488 in Canonical Click Reviewers tools "Javascript files identified as binaries" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1564488
[16:06] <jdstrand> popey: thanks on both. approved
[16:06] <popey> ta
[23:07] <matv1> bzoltan do you have a moment?