<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 3:52 AM, Cristian Oneţ <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:onet.cristian@gmail.com">onet.cristian@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
În data de Luni 27 Iulie 2009 04:05:38 Alvaro Soliverez a scris:<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5">> On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Cristian Oneţ<br>
<<a href="mailto:onet.cristian@gmail.com">onet.cristian@gmail.com</a>>wrote:<br>
> > În data de Duminică 26 Iulie 2009 16:06:27 Alvaro Soliverez a scris:<br>
> > > > It is enough to explicitly enable the updates but I would prefer<br>
> > > > disabling/restoring the updates in the transaction form only if that<br>
> > > > is needed<br>
> > > > (when they are not already disabled). That way when the updates on<br>
> > > > the parent<br>
> > > > widget are re-enabled they will also be re-enabled on the transaction<br>
> > > > form.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Can you emit a signal and connect it to a slot that will<br>
> ><br>
> > setUpdatesEnabled<br>
> ><br>
> > > to true?<br>
> > > That might do it.<br>
> ><br>
> > What do you say about the attached patch instead of setting up a signal?<br>
> ><br>
> > Well, it's simpler than setting up a signal. :))<br>
><br>
> Does updatesEnabled return false only if it is disabled explicitly or<br>
> always when a parent widget has been disabled?<br>
</div></div>It returns false when updates are disabled on a parent (that was the initial<br>
problem that we restored this "false" value and the framework acted like we<br>
disabled the updates explicitly)<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> Do you think this will catch all cases?<br>
</div>I think it is the best compromise between wanting to disable updates and<br>
restore their original state after disabling but nonetheless avoid an explicit<br>
disabling by doing this.<br>
<br>
</blockquote><div><br>Commit it, then, and let's see how this approach works.<br></div></div><br>