gEDA-bug: [Bug 701431] [NEW] Export and use accessors for getting / setting object visibility

[Peter Clifton <pcjc2@xxxxxxxxx>]

Public bug reported:

Spilling this follow-up from bug 700841, the solution to which which
introduces a libgeda private getter and setter for object visibility.

Copying from my last comment there:

I'm surprised that the getter / setter changes only affect libgeda
though, but in a way this is neater in some ways.

What I propose is that we push them for the stable-1.6 branch as is,
which will fix this bug.

There is still plenty of direct use of the object->visibility flag in
gschem and gattrib - It would be amazing if you could write us a follow-
up patch which applies on top of those you have already written, which:

1. Moves the getter and setters out of the libgeda private APIs, and into the exported API
2. Substitutes all use of the old API in gschem and gattrib

To ensure you catch all cases, what I would suggest is that you also
rename the member varibable from "visibility" to "_visibility". This
will be the last patch in the series after you have replaced all but the
legal usage in libgeda.

What I would do myself, is use "stgit", manage these pages:

1. Make a patch which exports the API
2. Make a patch which renames the member variable "visibility" to "_visibility", and fixes up its usage in the getter + setters (ONLY)
3. On top of this, make two more patches - one to use the setter, one to use the getter - in the other parts of the suite.
You know you're done when the whole suite compiles again ;)

Then I'd push those two patches, and "float" the rename patch (No. 2 to
the top. This way, the series should compile and work at every commit -
which is important.

Lets see - should we leave this bug open until all usage is converted, or should this be a new bug?
(New bug I think.. I'll start it off with this comment.

** Affects: geda
     Importance: Medium
     Assignee: Krzysztof KoÅciuszkiewicz (k-kosciuszkiewicz)
         Status: Triaged

** Changed in: geda
       Status: Incomplete => Confirmed

** Changed in: geda
       Status: Confirmed => Triaged

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of gEDA Bug
Team, which is subscribed to gEDA.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/701431

Title:
  Export and use accessors for getting / setting object visibility

Status in GPL Electronic Design Automation tools:
  Triaged

Bug description:
  Spilling this follow-up from bug 700841, the solution to which which introduces a libgeda private getter and setter for object visibility.

Copying from my last comment there:

I'm surprised that the getter / setter changes only affect libgeda though, but in a way this is neater in some ways.

What I propose is that we push them for the stable-1.6 branch as is, which will fix this bug.

There is still plenty of direct use of the object->visibility flag in gschem and gattrib - It would be amazing if you could write us a follow-up patch which applies on top of those you have already written, which:

1. Moves the getter and setters out of the libgeda private APIs, and into the exported API
2. Substitutes all use of the old API in gschem and gattrib

To ensure you catch all cases, what I would suggest is that you also rename the member varibable from "visibility" to "_visibility". This will be the last patch in the series after you have replaced all but the legal usage in libgeda.

What I would do myself, is use "stgit", manage these pages:

1. Make a patch which exports the API
2. Make a patch which renames the member variable "visibility" to "_visibility", and fixes up its usage in the getter + setters (ONLY)
3. On top of this, make two more patches - one to use the setter, one to use the getter - in the other parts of the suite.
You know you're done when the whole suite compiles again ;)

Then I'd push those two patches, and "float" the rename patch (No. 2 to the top. This way, the series should compile and work at every commit - which is important.

Lets see - should we leave this bug open until all usage is converted, or should this be a new bug?
(New bug I think.. I'll start it off with this comment.




_______________________________________________
geda-bug mailing list
geda-bug@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-bug