Closed Bug 1074869 Opened 10 years ago Closed 10 years ago

Make atk deal with proxied focus events

Categories

(Core :: Disability Access APIs, defect)

x86_64
Linux
defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED

People

(Reporter: tbsaunde, Assigned: tbsaunde)

Details

Attachments

(2 files)

I imagine at some point we may need to do something smarter because of multiple windows and what not, but it seems to me this patch is better than nothing.
Attachment #8497534 - Flags: review?(dbolter)
Summary: Make deal with proxied focus events → Make atk deal with proxied focus events
Comment on attachment 8497534 [details] [diff] [review] make atk deal with proxied focus events Review of attachment 8497534 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- ok (note to readers: requires bug 982842) ::: accessible/ipc/DocAccessibleParent.cpp @@ +118,5 @@ > + return true; > + } > + > + ProxyAccessible* proxy = e->mProxy; > + ProxyEvent(proxy, aEventType); Should we assert for proxy here? I think ProxyEvent fails silently otherwise. Not sure how I feel about that.
Attachment #8497534 - Flags: review?(dbolter) → review+
(In reply to David Bolter [:davidb] from comment #2) > Comment on attachment 8497534 [details] [diff] [review] > make atk deal with proxied focus events > > Review of attachment 8497534 [details] [diff] [review]: > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > ok > (note to readers: requires bug 982842) > > ::: accessible/ipc/DocAccessibleParent.cpp > @@ +118,5 @@ > > + return true; > > + } > > + > > + ProxyAccessible* proxy = e->mProxy; > > + ProxyEvent(proxy, aEventType); > > Should we assert for proxy here? I think ProxyEvent fails silently > otherwise. Not sure how I feel about that. probably, though I'm not really sure why we need to fail silently, its kind of coppied from AccessibleWrap::HandleEvent
Attachment #8519306 - Flags: review?(dbolter)
Comment on attachment 8519306 [details] [diff] [review] make atk deal with proxied focus events Review of attachment 8519306 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- ::: accessible/atk/AccessibleWrap.cpp @@ +1309,5 @@ > > +void > +a11y::ProxyEvent(ProxyAccessible* aTarget, uint32_t aEventType) > +{ > + AtkObject* wrapper = GetWrapperFor(aTarget); Why did you remove the !wrapper check? ::: accessible/base/EventQueue.cpp @@ +481,5 @@ > } > > +void > +EventQueue::SendIPCEvent(AccEvent* aEvent) const > +{ Good idea. @@ +497,5 @@ > + break; > + > + case nsIAccessibleEvent::EVENT_REORDER: > + // reorder events on the application acc aren't necessary to tell the parent > + // about new top level documents. I'm curious what happens if we do?
Attachment #8519306 - Flags: review?(dbolter) → review+
> ::: accessible/atk/AccessibleWrap.cpp > @@ +1309,5 @@ > > > > +void > > +a11y::ProxyEvent(ProxyAccessible* aTarget, uint32_t aEventType) > > +{ > > + AtkObject* wrapper = GetWrapperFor(aTarget); > > Why did you remove the !wrapper check? I don't see how it can possibly be true > @@ +497,5 @@ > > + break; > > + > > + case nsIAccessibleEvent::EVENT_REORDER: > > + // reorder events on the application acc aren't necessary to tell the parent > > + // about new top level documents. > > I'm curious what happens if we do? we get an assertion because the parent process doesn't know about the accessible for the childs Application acc.
Assignee: nobody → tbsaunde+mozbugs
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: