Activity
From 05/30/2024 to 06/28/2024
06/28/2024
- 01:23 PM Bug #8809: Incorrect next enabled widget calculation
- I'm more concerned with trying various scenarios to see if there is any breakage.
- 01:01 PM Bug #8809: Incorrect next enabled widget calculation
- Greg Shah wrote:
> Have you tested this with a customer's large GUI application?
I will do smoke test only. I do ... - 12:57 PM Bug #8809: Incorrect next enabled widget calculation
- Have you tested this with a customer's large GUI application?
- 12:54 PM Bug #8809: Incorrect next enabled widget calculation
- Hynek Cihlar wrote:
> Code review 8809a. The changes look good, but it will require good amount of regression testin... - 10:40 AM Bug #8909: WAIT-FOR with PAUSE and no explicit focus: no default focus resolution should be done
- In OE in situations like @WAIT-FOR GO OF FRAME outerFrame PAUSE 2.@ (when @PAUSE@ option is used) no default focus re...
- 10:30 AM Bug #8909 (New): WAIT-FOR with PAUSE and no explicit focus: no default focus resolution should be...
06/27/2024
- 04:30 PM Bug #8809: Incorrect next enabled widget calculation
- Greg Shah wrote:
> 6667g is based on a recent trunk.
6667g is based on trunk rev. 15270 of 2024-06-05, while the ... - 01:05 PM Bug #8809: Incorrect next enabled widget calculation
- 6667g is based on a recent trunk. It can't be migrated back to 6667i because GSO 440 fails (some regression caused b...
- 11:42 AM Bug #8809: Incorrect next enabled widget calculation
- Hynek Cihlar wrote:
> Code review 8809a. The changes look good, but it will require good amount of regression testin... - 11:41 AM Bug #8770: ENTRY event is not sent for a frame when window receives focus
- To complete this change testing, the change in 8809a must be also applied.
06/26/2024
- 02:27 PM Bug #8872: WAIT-FOR with FOCUS explicitly specified: NO-APPLY return from ENTRY trigger must be i...
- One mode difference for the following modification of the original example:...
- 02:18 PM Bug #8872: WAIT-FOR with FOCUS explicitly specified: NO-APPLY return from ENTRY trigger must be i...
- An additional issue related to @WAIT-FOR@ with explicit focus discovered:
In the following modified version of @8770...
06/25/2024
- 11:24 AM Bug #8770: ENTRY event is not sent for a frame when window receives focus
- After the initial patch the @ENTRY@ event is sent twice to the @innerFrame@ in the example.
The sending code remov... - 08:08 AM Bug #8872: WAIT-FOR with FOCUS explicitly specified: NO-APPLY return from ENTRY trigger must be i...
- Greg Shah wrote:
> You might as well resolve it here.
I did. Now the change causes addition failed tests in the C... - 07:07 AM Bug #7824: Simplify idle connection settings and apply the default configuration for the web clie...
- Galya B wrote:
> Sergey Ivanovskiy wrote:
> > These two timeout parameters of @webClient@
> > [...]
> > define t... - 06:35 AM Bug #7824: Simplify idle connection settings and apply the default configuration for the web clie...
- Sergey Ivanovskiy wrote:
> These two timeout parameters of @webClient@
> ...
06/21/2024
- 12:09 PM Bug #7657: 8-bit character entry problem in ChUI
- The @7657a@ updated to revision @15287@, rebased with recent trunk @15306@, new revision is @15309@.
The changes t...
06/19/2024
- 02:43 PM Bug #8586 (Test): Fields are not in FIELD-GROUP until they are enabled
- 02:38 PM Bug #8586: Fields are not in FIELD-GROUP until they are enabled
- Greg Shah wrote:
> This can merge to trunk now.
Done. Trunk rev. 15302. - 12:07 PM Bug #8586 (Merge Pending): Fields are not in FIELD-GROUP until they are enabled
- This can merge to trunk now.
- 11:32 AM Bug #8586: Fields are not in FIELD-GROUP until they are enabled
- Vladimir Tsichevski wrote:
> Greg Shah wrote:
> > Have you completed the ChUI regression testing?
>
> Not yet.
... - 05:33 AM Bug #8586: Fields are not in FIELD-GROUP until they are enabled
- Greg Shah wrote:
> Have you completed the ChUI regression testing?
Not yet. - 05:32 AM Bug #8586: Fields are not in FIELD-GROUP until they are enabled
- Have you completed the ChUI regression testing?
06/17/2024
- 03:31 PM Bug #7657: 8-bit character entry problem in ChUI
- To be clear: we have existing customers that use hardware terminals and we must continue to support their use cases. ...
- 03:27 PM Bug #7657: 8-bit character entry problem in ChUI
- > Also all Cyrillic letters(just for test, not sure we need this in production).
These were previously working at ... - 03:26 PM Bug #7657: 8-bit character entry problem in ChUI
- > Another question. Do we really need to support @UTF-8@ for interactive *ChUI* client? I see in a Progress DOC only ...
- 03:21 PM Bug #7657: 8-bit character entry problem in ChUI
- > Another word we need to be able to enter the Euro sign(and other possible chars from alternative layout) from keybo...
- 03:20 PM Bug #7657: 8-bit character entry problem in ChUI
- > We @<company_name>@ support customers all over the world. 255 characters are not enough.
>
> But for now, the cu... - 03:18 PM Bug #7657: 8-bit character entry problem in ChUI
- > The @UTF-8@ config issue resolved. So the note #7657-35 can be dropped.
Just to be clear: #7657-19 and #7657-10 ... - 11:05 AM Bug #6074 (Closed): Movable widget problem
- 03:41 AM Bug #6074 (Test): Movable widget problem
- This was fully fixed in 3821c, which was merged to trunk in the meantime. Thus, it can be closed.
06/15/2024
- 06:31 PM Bug #7657: 8-bit character entry problem in ChUI
- Fixed the output in wide char mode issue. So now we have at least Euro sign in @ChUI@ terminal session. Also all Cyri...
- 09:50 PM Bug #7657: 8-bit character entry problem in ChUI
- The @7657a@ rebased with recent trunk @15284@, new revision is @15286@.
06/14/2024
- 06:16 PM Bug #7657: 8-bit character entry problem in ChUI
- Another question. Do we really need to support @UTF-8@ for interactive *ChUI* client? I see in a Progress DOC only @G...
- 03:30 PM Bug #7657: 8-bit character entry problem in ChUI
- Robert Jensen wrote:
> We @<company_name>@ support customers all over the world. 255 characters are not enough.
>
... - 03:11 PM Bug #7657: 8-bit character entry problem in ChUI
- We @<company_name>@ support customers all over the world. 255 characters are not enough.
But for now, the current ... - 02:38 PM Bug #7657: 8-bit character entry problem in ChUI
- The @UTF-8@ config issue resolved. So the note #7657-35 can be dropped.
The other issue here is the input handling... - 09:07 AM Bug #7657: 8-bit character entry problem in ChUI
- What I have done in the past is put various characters into MAriaDB, then display them. The encoding is UTF-8.
1) 8 ... - 08:38 AM Bug #7657: 8-bit character entry problem in ChUI
- The addition issue here is not clear how to set up @UTF-8@ as @cpinternal@ or @charset@. I have tried 3 ways:
1. @di...
06/13/2024
- 06:39 PM Bug #7657: 8-bit character entry problem in ChUI
- Robert,
Currently I'm working on the Java part for @UTF-8@ support in @ChUI@. And I need some assistance.
The c... - 08:54 PM Bug #7657: 8-bit character entry problem in ChUI
- The @7657a@ rebased with recent trunk @15277@, updated to revision @15282@.
With this change the flag to use wide ... - 09:26 AM Bug #8872: WAIT-FOR with FOCUS explicitly specified: NO-APPLY return from ENTRY trigger must be i...
- You might as well resolve it here.
- 09:17 AM Bug #8872: WAIT-FOR with FOCUS explicitly specified: NO-APPLY return from ENTRY trigger must be i...
- Greg Shah wrote:
> Is this seen in customer code?
>
> > the focus is set to @focusable2@
>
I do not know.
>... - 09:15 AM Bug #8872: WAIT-FOR with FOCUS explicitly specified: NO-APPLY return from ENTRY trigger must be i...
- Is this seen in customer code?
> the focus is set to @focusable2@
Are you referring to the @FOCUS@ system handle? - 09:08 AM Bug #8872: WAIT-FOR with FOCUS explicitly specified: NO-APPLY return from ENTRY trigger must be i...
- Other difference, which can be seen after the main issue fixed:
# OE: before the @ENTRY@ is sent to the @focusable... - 09:03 AM Bug #8872 (WIP): WAIT-FOR with FOCUS explicitly specified: NO-APPLY return from ENTRY trigger mus...
- The following change fixes this very issue:...
06/12/2024
- 04:26 PM Bug #8872: WAIT-FOR with FOCUS explicitly specified: NO-APPLY return from ENTRY trigger must be i...
- The @WAIT-FOR@ statement can include the @FOCUS@ option. The initial focus must be set to the widget, specified as th...
- 04:16 PM Bug #8872 (WIP): WAIT-FOR with FOCUS explicitly specified: NO-APPLY return from ENTRY trigger mus...
- 11:58 AM Bug #7684 (Closed): ENTRY event is emitted twice
- 11:57 AM Bug #7684 (Internal Test): ENTRY event is emitted twice
- Yes, looks like it is fixed.
- 09:02 AM Bug #7684 (Feedback): ENTRY event is emitted twice
- Stanislav,
I cannot reproduce the problem you describe. Switching focus to @st2@ with TAB or mouse click generates...
06/11/2024
- 06:32 PM Bug #8673: Deduce the logic behind OE focus management and implement in FWD
- A strange thing in OE.
The test application:
# Defines a frame @outerFrame@ with a button @focusable4@.
# The ...
06/10/2024
- 04:30 AM Bug #8586: Fields are not in FIELD-GROUP until they are enabled
- Alexandru Lungu wrote:
> Vladimir, are the changes in 8586a going to fix #8068 as well. If so, what testing do you t... - 03:22 AM Bug #8586: Fields are not in FIELD-GROUP until they are enabled
- Vladimir, are the changes in 8586a going to fix #8068 as well. If so, what testing do you think are required for this?
05/30/2024
- 12:03 PM Bug #8586 (Internal Test): Fields are not in FIELD-GROUP until they are enabled
- 8586a revision 15256,
Nice simplification of @nextTabItem@!
The changes also affect other use cases like @ENABL... - 08:02 AM Bug #8586: Fields are not in FIELD-GROUP until they are enabled
- Hynek: Please review.
Also available in: Atom