On Sunday, August 09, 2015 10:45:19 AM Allen Winter wrote: > On Sunday, August 09, 2015 09:58:26 AM Allen Winter wrote: > > On Sunday, August 09, 2015 09:35:06 PM Ben Cooksley wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 3:15 AM, Allen Winter <win...@kde.org> wrote: > > > > On Saturday, August 08, 2015 04:59:49 PM Elvis Angelaccio wrote: > > > >> Sorry to bump this old thread, but it looks like Krazy still complains > > > >> about kdelibs4 errors even if an application is now KF5 based. > > > >> For instance consider again Kanagram: > > > >> http://ebn.kde.org/krazy/reports/kde-4.x/kdeedu/kanagram/index.html > > > >> > > > >> Am I missing something? Is there another page showing KF5-related > > > >> issues > > > >> for KF5-ready apps? > > > >> > > > > > > > > If Krazy is running in the kde-4.x component, then it does use the KDE4 > > > > checkers. > > > > > > > > For now, Krazy only knows its looking at KF5 code if it's running in > > > > the frameworks 5 component in > > > > http://ebn.kde.org/krazy/index.php?component=frameworks&module=frameworks5 > > > > > > > > I don't see kanagram listed in the frameworks5 component. > > > > > > > > The KDE projects also lists kanagram in kde-4.x only, as far as I can > > > > tell. > > > > So first step is to get kanagram listed as a frameworks project. > > > > > > To my knowledge there isn't anything on projects.kde.org which states > > > a project is kde-4.x only. Where is this information coming from? > > > > > the projects db > > > > I see that kanagram master is kf5 based but is not part of frameworks. > > therefore I will need to invent a way to detect that a project is kf5 based. > > do we have an easy way to detect kde4 vs. kf5 projects? > > > Reading the code helped me remember: > I have a hard-coded list of kf5 projects > I'll add kanagram to that list for a short-term solution. >
I modified Krazy to look in the project's top-level CMakeLists.txt to determine if its a KDE4 or KF5 project. Hope this works. Let me know otherwise. No more hard-coding KF5 projects. yay -Allen > > > >> > > > >> 2014-09-28 18:28 GMT+02:00 Allen Winter <win...@kde.org>: > > > >> > > > >> > On Wednesday, September 24, 2014 10:38:37 AM Jeremy Whiting wrote: > > > >> > > Allen, > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Thanks for fixing this, I think it will be a useful tool to check > > > >> > > our > > > >> > > existing frameworks and code based on frameworks with. I'll update > > > >> > > the > > > >> > > techbase pages myself. > > > >> > > > > > >> > The Krazy check for frameworks should be good to go now. > > > >> > Please notify me if you find encounter issues no longer relevant in > > > >> > Qt5/KDE5. > > > >> > > > > >> > > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Allen Winter <win...@kde.org> > > > >> > > wrote: > > > >> > > > On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 04:15:27 PM Jeremy Whiting wrote: > > > >> > > >> Albert, > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> I can take a look at it if someone points me in the right > > > >> > > >> direction. I > > > >> > > >> also found this: > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > http://ebn.kde.org/krazy/reports/frameworks-5.x/kdelibs/knewstuff/index.html > > > >> > > >> which seems to check the right way for frameworks suggestions, > > > >> > > >> but it > > > >> > > >> hasn't been ran since Dec of last year :/ and also it calls the > > > >> > > >> frameworks kdelibs still (or at least puts it in the url) So it > > > >> > > >> seems > > > >> > > >> krazy can handle this new set of suggestions (maybe it could > > > >> > > >> use some > > > >> > > >> tweaks though) but hasn't been ran in quite some time. How do I > > > >> > > >> get > > > >> > > >> access to run it more often, etc. > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Yes that's all on my plate. > > > >> > > > I have it on my todo list. > > > >> > > > Krazy should be kde5 ready , I just need to plug it in and turn > > > >> > > > it on. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > I don't recall if there were any blockers, or if I simply got > > > >> > distracted on something else. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > The associated changes to the techbase documentation is not on my > > > >> > radar. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Albert Astals Cid > > > >> > > >> <aa...@kde.org> > > > >> > wrote: > > > >> > > >> > El Dimarts, 23 de setembre de 2014, a les 15:56:58, Jeremy > > > >> > > >> > Whiting > > > >> > va > > > >> > > >> > escriure: > > > >> > > >> >> Hello all, > > > >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> Since some of our applications and our workspace will be > > > >> > > >> >> updated > > > >> > for > > > >> > > >> >> the next major release (14.12 is the name iirc) to use Qt5 > > > >> > > >> >> and KDE > > > >> > > >> >> Frameworks I thought I would check > > > >> > > >> >> englishbreakfastnetwork.org > > > >> > code > > > >> > > >> >> checker of kanagram (which has master branch based on qt5 > > > >> > > >> >> and kf5). > > > >> > > >> >> > > > >> > http://ebn.kde.org/krazy/reports/kde-4.x/kdeedu/kanagram/index.html > > > >> > > >> >> Some of the "issues" on krazy are old and point to techbase > > > >> > articles > > > >> > > >> >> suggesting the opposite of the kf5 porting notes, For > > > >> > > >> >> example, > > > >> > krazy > > > >> > > >> >> suggests we should use KLineEdit instead of QLineEdit but the > > > >> > porting > > > >> > > >> >> notes suggest to port from KLineEdit to QLineEdit since > > > >> > > >> >> KLineEdit > > > >> > is > > > >> > > >> >> to be deprecated. Maybe I just missed something on ebn, but > > > >> > > >> >> do we > > > >> > need > > > >> > > >> >> to add another category there for kf5 based code to be > > > >> > > >> >> checked in a > > > >> > > >> >> different way with different rules, etc.? Shouldn't we > > > >> > > >> >> update pages > > > >> > > >> >> like https://techbase.kde.org/Policies/API_to_Avoid to > > > >> > > >> >> reflect new > > > >> > > >> >> suggestions also I guess or split them to contain > > > >> > > >> >> suggestions for > > > >> > > >> >> kdelibs4 based code vs kf5 based code? > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > We totally should, now who is going to do it ;) > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > Cheers, > > > >> > > >> > Albert > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> thanks, > > > >> > > >> >> Jeremy > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >