Use subseq matching for service runner
Needs ReviewPublic

Authored by michaeleden on Sun, Jul 8, 6:27 PM.

Details

Reviewers
rthomas
broulik
Group Reviewers
Plasma: Workspaces
Plasma
Summary

This changes krunner to use sub-sequence matching fixing bug 262837.
Some usage examples are shown below:

BUG: 262837

Depends on D13670

Diff Detail

Repository
R120 Plasma Workspace
Branch
feat/app-name-subseq
Lint
No Linters Available
Unit
No Unit Test Coverage
Build Status
Buildable 682
Build 694: arc lint + arc unit
michaeleden created this revision.Sun, Jul 8, 6:27 PM
Restricted Application added a project: Plasma. · View Herald TranscriptSun, Jul 8, 6:27 PM
Restricted Application added a subscriber: plasma-devel. · View Herald Transcript
michaeleden requested review of this revision.Sun, Jul 8, 6:27 PM
michaeleden edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)Sun, Jul 8, 6:29 PM
michaeleden edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)
ngraham added a subscriber: ngraham.

This fixes B262837 (how do you show this in phab?) and relies on D13670

Like so: :)

BUG: 262837

Depends on D13670

See https://community.kde.org/Infrastructure/Phabricator#Add_special_keywords

After you change the Summary section using the web interface, you'll need to run arc amend to pull down that change into your local branch.

Thanks a lot for the patch, BTW! This will be a nice improvement.

plasma-workspace does compile without D13670 and KRunner seems to work, but it gives me a whole lotta console spew:

kf5.kservice.services: Parsing "exist Exec and ( (exist Keywords and 'scover' ~subin Keywords) or (exist GenericName and 'scover' ~subseq GenericName) or (exist Name and 'scover' ~subseq Name) or ('scover' ~subseq Exec) or (exist Comment and 'scover' ~subseq Comment) )" gave: syntax error

We should probably bump the KF5 version requirement in CMakeLists.txt here to require 5.48.

@ngraham this didn't make it into 5.48 but it did make it into the commit after that. Should I put 5.49 even though its not tagged yet?

Nah, let's wait. We'll have to see what the dependency plans are for Plasma; I'm not sure whether or not we'll be depending on Frameworks 5.49 for Plasma 5.14. Might wanna ask one of the Plasma folks.