So, I'm copiing the KWrite QList for the context of the iteration. As far as I understand how QList behaves, this should be ok. Funkcionality is still the same as with the previous patch version.

This one implements the basic KTextEditor interface.

Time is so far ok, but it's going to be a bigger change then what I initially expected and I'm not sure if it's going to be in a good way for kwrite as minimal editor.

Uh, this is getting more complicated then I though it would be.

Merged with 10c552846e73e5ccb342d91d84ef4cf302750fab

In D21409#470040, @cullmann wrote:

I think a skeleton is ok, but is quit really just close? I thought it should try to quit the app not only close one window.

In D21405#470000, @apol wrote:

It links once it's pushed.

Sigh... I wish KDE would use something like gitlab at this point. According to this https://community.kde.org/Infrastructure/Phabricator#Add_special_keywords it should be sufficient to add BUG: 407103 to the summary to link the issue in bugzila, but nothing has happened. What did I miss? I hope theese still works? https://community.kde.org/Policies/Commit_Policy#Special_keywords_in_GIT_and_SVN_log_messages

In D21187#465215, @dhaumann wrote:

Btw, slightly related: there is a bug report saying it does not work in all cases: https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=407512
Maybe you want, you can have a look at this as well.

Sorry it took so long, I've had a busy week. I've added to general configuration tab the option to switch the quick open match mode. I don't like the implementation though. The thing is quite scattered all over the place.

This was the original behavior before quick open refactor, but I'm ok with making it changeable. In theory it could be easily extended with for example Levenshtein distance matching. Not sure about putting it in context menu (which one?). If some people would prefer one or the other I guess they would want to do it globally for all kate sessions. Wouldn't it be better to put it in settings->appearance then?

In D12629#268952, @dhaumann wrote:

@michalhumpula This was committed already with 0a96383144e11a6608cbee6a233ffafc4007704d right? I close this revision, probably the commit hooks did not work as expected or so.

Hi Francis, it probably got switched during massive refactor few years back by me. Looks good. Thanks for the fix!

The tests are passing for me before and after apllying the patch, so please commit to master.

Hi Leandro, thanks for the patch. The check for the nullptr should be perfectly ok. It's weird that it breaks the tests. One little nitpick: please try to comply with the code style of kf5 libraries https://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Frameworks_Coding_Style#Braceslibraries.

In D1894#35680, @sstjames wrote:

UPDATE: Hopefully fix the "replay macro/ last change duplicates characters" bug - no automated test for this yet (for some reason, the tests fail for Michal, but not for me!). Michal - would you mind acting as Guinea Pig again? :)

In D1894#35410, @sstjames wrote:

In D1894#35403, @michalhumpula wrote:

In D1894#35400, @sstjames wrote:

In D1894#35395, @michalhumpula wrote:

Seems to be working correctly. Compiled, tested (tests and manual) on my computer with Qt5.6.1. One of the vim_keys test is failing, but at least the vi mode is back functioning, so ship it.

Thanks for testing :) Which vim_keys test is failing? They seem to all be working here, though I'm using Qt 5.5.1.

It might be just a new bug in Qt5.6 :)

>>> running command  "qa"  on text  ""
 FAIL!  : KeysTest::MacroTests() 'kate_view->viewModeHuman().contains(macroIsRecordingStatus)' returned FALSE. ()
    Loc: [/amonsul/kde/ktexteditor/autotests/src/vimode/keys.cpp(707)]
 QDEBUG : KeysTest::MarkTests()

Thanks Michal - fingers crossed :) Can you manually check whether simple macros appear to work OK (and whether the (recording) appears in the status bar)? I'm a bit concerned that something fundamental has gone wrong here (this is the very first macro test, and the others won't be run if that one fails).

In D1894#35400, @sstjames wrote:

In D1894#35395, @michalhumpula wrote:

Seems to be working correctly. Compiled, tested (tests and manual) on my computer with Qt5.6.1. One of the vim_keys test is failing, but at least the vi mode is back functioning, so ship it.

Thanks for testing :) Which vim_keys test is failing? They seem to all be working here, though I'm using Qt 5.5.1.

Seems to be working correctly. Compiled, tested (tests and manual) on my computer with Qt5.6.1. One of the vim_keys test is failing, but at least the vi mode is back functioning, so ship it.

Since you have moved the code to separate folder, don't you want to move the code to separate C++ namespace too?