Closed Bug 523789 Opened 13 years ago Closed 13 years ago

nsHTMLLiAccessible shouldn't be inherited from linkable accessible

Categories

(Core :: Disability Access APIs, defect)

defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED

People

(Reporter: surkov, Assigned: surkov)

References

(Blocks 1 open bug)

Details

(Keywords: access)

Attachments

(1 file)

Previously HTML li accessible was normal hyper text accessible, however it was turned into linkable accessible to handle registered click event listener in bug 301621. Since we started to expose 'click' action in nsAccessible class if proper event listener is registered then HTML li accessible don't need to be inherited from linkable accessible and we can remove this hack (because linkable accessible is designed to search action in parent chain including itself). As well this bug is part of reorganization work from bug 372131.
Attached patch patchSplinter Review
Assignee: nobody → surkov.alexander
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #407715 - Flags: review?(bolterbugz)
Comment on attachment 407715 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

r=me thanks; but would prefer nit addressed.

>+nsHTMLLIAccessible::
>+  nsHTMLLIAccessible(nsIDOMNode *aDOMNode, nsIWeakReference* aShell, 
>+                     const nsAString& aBulletText):
>+  nsHyperTextAccessibleWrap(aDOMNode, aShell)

Nit: Can you preserve nsHTMLLIAccessible::nsHTMLLIAccessible on the same line? I worry about static analysis tools and grep fails etc, when looking for constructors. Plus it looks weird to me. Is there precedent?
Attachment #407715 - Flags: review?(bolterbugz) → review+
(In reply to comment #2)
> (From update of attachment 407715 [details] [diff] [review])
> r=me thanks; but would prefer nit addressed.
> 
> >+nsHTMLLIAccessible::
> >+  nsHTMLLIAccessible(nsIDOMNode *aDOMNode, nsIWeakReference* aShell, 
> >+                     const nsAString& aBulletText):
> >+  nsHyperTextAccessibleWrap(aDOMNode, aShell)
> 
> Nit: Can you preserve nsHTMLLIAccessible::nsHTMLLIAccessible on the same line?
> I worry about static analysis tools and grep fails etc, when looking for
> constructors. Plus it looks weird to me. Is there precedent?

Almost everywhere in accessibility. Do they fail actually?
If it is done everywhere already, then that's fine. Do you like it?

(I doubt they fail if we already do this)
(In reply to comment #4)
> If it is done everywhere already, then that's fine. Do you like it?

yep, it allows to keep big arguments list in more nice way
landed on 1.9.3 - http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/3c17a37fd4d2
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 13 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.