Revision 935578

[Adrian Crum-2]

Revision 935578 has screen widget code writing values to the parameters Map. Why was that necessary? The value being passed from widget to widget could be a regular screen context field.

(btw, I apologize for not replying to the commit messages - I don't have access to them on this computer.)

-Adrian



     

[Jacques Le Roux]

It's not clear to me where this could be

Jacques

From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]>
> Revision 935578 has screen widget code writing values to the parameters Map. Why was that necessary? The value being passed from
> widget to widget could be a regular screen context field.
>
> (btw, I apologize for not replying to the commit messages - I don't have access to them on this computer.)
>
> -Adrian

[Adrian Crum-2]

<set field="parameters.presentation" value="window"/>

in common/widget/LookupScreens. It's not a bug or major issue, it's just bad programming style.

-Adrian

--- On Fri, 12/31/10, Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: Revision 935578
> To: [hidden email]
> Date: Friday, December 31, 2010, 1:27 AM
> It's not clear to me where this could
> be
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]>
> > Revision 935578 has screen widget code writing values
> to the parameters Map. Why was that necessary? The value
> being passed from widget to widget could be a regular screen
> context field.
> >
> > (btw, I apologize for not replying to the commit
> messages - I don't have access to them on this computer.)
> >
> > -Adrian
>
>
>

     

[Jacques Le Roux]

Mmm, yes maybe... but we have more than 100 such cases... So I wonder if it's such a problem (I did not thought much about it yet)
BTW did you see the builbot report for r1054161?

Jacques

From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]>

> <set field="parameters.presentation" value="window"/>
>
> in common/widget/LookupScreens. It's not a bug or major issue, it's just bad programming style.
>
> -Adrian
>
> --- On Fri, 12/31/10, Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> From: Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: Revision 935578
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Date: Friday, December 31, 2010, 1:27 AM
>> It's not clear to me where this could
>> be
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]>
>> > Revision 935578 has screen widget code writing values
>> to the parameters Map. Why was that necessary? The value
>> being passed from widget to widget could be a regular screen
>> context field.
>> >
>> > (btw, I apologize for not replying to the commit
>> messages - I don't have access to them on this computer.)
>> >
>> > -Adrian
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>      
>

[David E. Jones-2]

There is nothing wrong inherently with that sort of statement. It is best to only write to the parameters Map to override an existing (or possibly existing) parameter, and not use it as the context is used for general local variables.

-David


On Dec 31, 2010, at 3:24 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Mmm, yes maybe... but we have more than 100 such cases... So I wonder if it's such a problem (I did not thought much about it yet)
> BTW did you see the builbot report for r1054161?
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]>
>> <set field="parameters.presentation" value="window"/>
>> in common/widget/LookupScreens. It's not a bug or major issue, it's just bad programming style.
>> -Adrian
>> --- On Fri, 12/31/10, Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> From: Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]>
>>> Subject: Re: Revision 935578
>>> To: [hidden email]
>>> Date: Friday, December 31, 2010, 1:27 AM
>>> It's not clear to me where this could
>>> be
>>> Jacques
>>> From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]>
>>> > Revision 935578 has screen widget code writing values
>>> to the parameters Map. Why was that necessary? The value
>>> being passed from widget to widget could be a regular screen
>>> context field.
>>> > > (btw, I apologize for not replying to the commit
>>> messages - I don't have access to them on this computer.)
>>> > > -Adrian
>>    
>

[Adrian Crum-2]

Buildbot lies. Everything compiles fine.

-Adrian

--- On Fri, 12/31/10, Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Mmm, yes maybe... but we have more
> than 100 such cases... So I wonder if it's such a problem (I
> did not thought much about it yet)
> BTW did you see the builbot report for r1054161?
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]>
> > <set field="parameters.presentation"
> value="window"/>
> >
> > in common/widget/LookupScreens. It's not a bug or
> major issue, it's just bad programming style.
> >
> > -Adrian
> >
> > --- On Fri, 12/31/10, Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]>
> >> Subject: Re: Revision 935578
> >> To: [hidden email]
> >> Date: Friday, December 31, 2010, 1:27 AM
> >> It's not clear to me where this could
> >> be
> >>
> >> Jacques
> >>
> >> From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]>
> >> > Revision 935578 has screen widget code
> writing values
> >> to the parameters Map. Why was that necessary? The
> value
> >> being passed from widget to widget could be a
> regular screen
> >> context field.
> >> > > (btw, I apologize for not replying to
> the commit
> >> messages - I don't have access to them on this
> computer.)
> >> > > -Adrian
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >     
>
>

[Adrian Crum-2]

It looks like some of the accounting tests are failing.

-Adrian

--- On Fri, 12/31/10, Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Buildbot lies. Everything compiles
> fine.
>
> -Adrian
>
> --- On Fri, 12/31/10, Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > Mmm, yes maybe... but we have more
> > than 100 such cases... So I wonder if it's such a
> problem (I
> > did not thought much about it yet)
> > BTW did you see the builbot report for r1054161?
> >
> > Jacques
> >
> > From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]>
> > > <set field="parameters.presentation"
> > value="window"/>
> > >
> > > in common/widget/LookupScreens. It's not a bug
> or
> > major issue, it's just bad programming style.
> > >
> > > -Adrian
> > >
> > > --- On Fri, 12/31/10, Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> From: Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]>
> > >> Subject: Re: Revision 935578
> > >> To: [hidden email]
> > >> Date: Friday, December 31, 2010, 1:27 AM
> > >> It's not clear to me where this could
> > >> be
> > >>
> > >> Jacques
> > >>
> > >> From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]>
> > >> > Revision 935578 has screen widget code
> > writing values
> > >> to the parameters Map. Why was that
> necessary? The
> > value
> > >> being passed from widget to widget could be
> a
> > regular screen
> > >> context field.
> > >> > > (btw, I apologize for not replying
> to
> > the commit
> > >> messages - I don't have access to them on
> this
> > computer.)
> > >> > > -Adrian
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >     
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

This should be fixed by rev. 1055057

Jacopo

On Jan 1, 2011, at 7:28 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:

> It looks like some of the accounting tests are failing.
>
> -Adrian
>
> --- On Fri, 12/31/10, Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Buildbot lies. Everything compiles
>> fine.
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>> --- On Fri, 12/31/10, Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>> Mmm, yes maybe... but we have more
>>> than 100 such cases... So I wonder if it's such a
>> problem (I
>>> did not thought much about it yet)
>>> BTW did you see the builbot report for r1054161?
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]>
>>>> <set field="parameters.presentation"
>>> value="window"/>
>>>>
>>>> in common/widget/LookupScreens. It's not a bug
>> or
>>> major issue, it's just bad programming style.
>>>>
>>>> -Adrian
>>>>
>>>> --- On Fri, 12/31/10, Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From: Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]>
>>>>> Subject: Re: Revision 935578
>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>> Date: Friday, December 31, 2010, 1:27 AM
>>>>> It's not clear to me where this could
>>>>> be
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>> From: "Adrian Crum" <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> Revision 935578 has screen widget code
>>> writing values
>>>>> to the parameters Map. Why was that
>> necessary? The
>>> value
>>>>> being passed from widget to widget could be
>> a
>>> regular screen
>>>>> context field.
>>>>>>> (btw, I apologize for not replying
>> to
>>> the commit
>>>>> messages - I don't have access to them on
>> this
>>> computer.)
>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>