aacid added a comment.
In https://phabricator.kde.org/D7671#144616, @rkflx wrote:
> For completeness, for a file watch on "x" (not sure whether you may have
confused file and dir watches as well as file and dir Okular code pathes in
your reply), we get:
>
> - `touch x` (no x yet) →
rkflx added a comment.
For completeness, for a file watch on "x" (not sure whether you may have
confused file and dir watches as well as file and dir Okular code pathes in
your reply), we get:
- `touch x` (no x yet) → "created" signal
- `touch x` (again) → "dirty" signal
- `touch
aacid added a comment.
In https://phabricator.kde.org/D7671#143898, @rkflx wrote:
> After further analysis, I can draw these conclusions (contradicting some
assumptions from above, confirming others):
>
> 1. KDirWatch correctly emits at least one "dirty" each for directory
watches
rkflx added a comment.
After further analysis, I can draw these conclusions (contradicting some
assumptions from above, confirming others):
1. KDirWatch correctly emits at least one "dirty" each for directory watches
when files are created, modified, deleted or moved_to (i.e., KDirWatch
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit R223:e3747ca3fd9b: Fix automatic reload of files saved with
QSaveFile (authored by progwolff).
REPOSITORY
R223 Okular
CHANGES SINCE LAST UPDATE
https://phabricator.kde.org/D7671?vs=19119=19269
aacid accepted this revision.
aacid added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
In https://phabricator.kde.org/D7671#143401, @progwolff wrote:
> In https://phabricator.kde.org/D7671#143269, @aacid wrote:
>
> > Have you read my email? There clearly says what
aacid added a comment.
In https://phabricator.kde.org/D7671#143360, @rkflx wrote:
> In https://phabricator.kde.org/D7671#143117, @aacid wrote:
>
> > It was added to make this work, and it did work at some point, i don't
add code for nothing ;)
>
>
> Of course, and your code
progwolff added a comment.
In https://phabricator.kde.org/D7671#143269, @aacid wrote:
> Have you read my email? There clearly says what happens and what the
documentation says it should happen (at least to my understanding of reading
it).
Sure, I read your mail. But I still
rkflx added a comment.
In https://phabricator.kde.org/D7671#143117, @aacid wrote:
> It was added to make this work, and it did work at some point, i don't add
code for nothing ;)
Of course, and your code still works today: it fixes the rm/touch case (with
aacid added a comment.
In https://phabricator.kde.org/D7671#143187, @progwolff wrote:
> In https://phabricator.kde.org/D7671#143118, @aacid wrote:
>
> > No, the code doesn't wait *only* for a dirty for path/file, read
Part::slotFileDirty better
> >
> > The problem here is that
aacid added a comment.
In https://phabricator.kde.org/D7671#143202, @progwolff wrote:
> ~~Okay, I modified KDirWatch so we actually get a dirty signal for the
directory.~~
>
> Now a new problem arised.
> QSaveFile does not delete and recreate the file as we thought. It just
progwolff added a comment.
Okay, I modified KDirWatch so we actually get a dirty signal for the
directory.
Now a new problem arised.
QSaveFile does not delete and recreate the file as we thought. It just moves
the swap file to the old file's location.
On move, KDirWatch still sends
progwolff added a comment.
In https://phabricator.kde.org/D7671#143118, @aacid wrote:
> No, the code doesn't wait *only* for a dirty for path/file, read
Part::slotFileDirty better
>
> The problem here is that dirty for the path is not being emitted,
aacid added a comment.
In https://phabricator.kde.org/D7671#142933, @progwolff wrote:
> In https://phabricator.kde.org/D7671#142826, @aacid wrote:
>
> > I don't know who told you this is the correct behaviour of kdirwatch, but
i kind of disagree.
> >
> > Since we're not watching
aacid added a comment.
In https://phabricator.kde.org/D7671#142844, @rkflx wrote:
> Albert: Do you remember why
https://phabricator.kde.org/R223:f93ccd7923491c6b1412ba5cb1fe0711e44496d8 was
necessary? There is no bug linked and no autotest. Using just the commit
message as a testcase,
progwolff added a comment.
In https://phabricator.kde.org/D7671#142826, @aacid wrote:
> I don't know who told you this is the correct behaviour of kdirwatch, but i
kind of disagree.
>
> Since we're not watching the file but *also* the folder.
From the KDirWatch class
rkflx added a comment.
Albert: Do you remember why
https://phabricator.kde.org/R223:f93ccd7923491c6b1412ba5cb1fe0711e44496d8 was
necessary? There is no bug linked and no autotest. Using just the commit
message as a testcase, with https://phabricator.kde.org/D7671 applied and
aacid added a comment.
I don't know who told you this is the correct behaviour of kdirwatch, but i
kind of disagree.
Since we're not watching the file but *also* the folder.
REPOSITORY
R223 Okular
REVISION DETAIL
https://phabricator.kde.org/D7671
To: progwolff, aacid
Cc: sander,
sander added a comment.
Such a @note seems like a good idea.
REPOSITORY
R223 Okular
REVISION DETAIL
https://phabricator.kde.org/D7671
To: progwolff, aacid
Cc: sander, rkflx, #okular, aacid
rkflx added a comment.
Nice, solves the issues for me (and confirms my suspicion that this is not a
regression or porting issue, as this is broken for me even on an ancient KDE4
distro), but I'll let Albert give the final "ship it".
Do you think we should add a `@note` to that effect to
progwolff edited the summary of this revision.
REPOSITORY
R223 Okular
REVISION DETAIL
https://phabricator.kde.org/D7671
To: progwolff, aacid
Cc: #okular, aacid
progwolff created this revision.
Restricted Application added a subscriber: Okular.
Restricted Application added a project: Okular.
REVISION SUMMARY
Files saved with QSaveFile don't get dirty. The are deleted and replaced.
Thus, inotify and KDirWatch don't emit a "dirty" signal (wich is the
22 matches
Mail list logo
