Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Extend DBusObjectManager to use GetAll #12

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

thorsten-klein
Copy link

The DBusObjectManager is specified by freedesktop to return as each
value in inner dict the same dict that would be returned by the
org.freedesktop.DBus.Properties.GetAll() method for that combination of
object path and interface. Only if an interface has no properties, an
empty dict will be returned.

The DBusObjectManager is specified by freedesktop to return as each
value in inner dict the same dict that would be returned by the
org.freedesktop.DBus.Properties.GetAll() method for that combination of
object path and interface. Only if an interface has no properties, an
empty dict will be returned.
@thorsten-klein
Copy link
Author

Hello,
do you have any timeline when this PR is going to be merged?

@thorsten-klein
Copy link
Author

Hello @gunnarx , do you know when this PR will be merged?

@gunnarx
Copy link

gunnarx commented Mar 25, 2019

@thorsten-klein First, thanks for the change proposal.

The project’s maintainer/developers seem to be busy with other things and not responding... so the short answer is unfortunately that I do not know... I will contact the maintainer again to find out what is going on, and what to expect here.

On the code, what you propose seems to make sense to me. If I understand correctly you are saying the current code is incorrect, if it intends to follow standard D-Bus conventions (as defined by freedesktop) and this should be considered a bug fix? If I felt more comfortable evaluating the possible impact of changing this behavior I could step in more actively, but I feel I don’t know the original design choices made in this part of the code.

If we don’t find a better solution would you be open to other options? Creating a branch/fork, or
even that you step in to help out on maintenance of this repo? Do you expect to make/propose more changes?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants