[jitsi-dev] [jitsi] Fixes for 2 issues (#14)


#1

Fixes for 2 small issues:
1. By disallowing focusing on static labels, the next best GUI component that will get focus is the current password field. In case a faulty password is entered, the password dialog reappears only the current password field isn't focused. By making these changes, the password field *will* be focused after reappearing, which is less annoying for heavy keyboard users.
2. When a user does not have any accounts configured and he then clicks the 'Add chat room' menu item, an NPE will occur, since the code assumes that an element is selected in the account combobox. However, since there are no accounts available, the combobox selection will return null, resulting in a NPE. Now checks instance instead of assuming existence.
You can merge this Pull Request by running:

  git pull https://github.com/cobratbq/jitsi master

Or you can view, comment on it, or merge it online at:

  https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi/pull/14

-- Commit Summary --

  * Don't allow focusing on static labels.
  * Fix NPE: Only set nick name if provider instance is available.

-- File Changes --

    M src/net/java/sip/communicator/impl/gui/main/chatroomslist/ChatRoomTableDialog.java (6)
    M src/net/java/sip/communicator/plugin/desktoputil/MasterPasswordInputDialog.java (2)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi/pull/14.patch
https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi/pull/14.diff


#2

Btw, in case it wasn't clear. It's from me.

···

On Thu 02 Jan 2014 06:54:57 PM CET, cobratbq wrote:

Fixes for 2 small issues:
1. By disallowing focusing on static labels, the next best GUI
component that will get focus is the current password field. In case a
faulty password is entered, the password dialog reappears only the
current password field isn't focused. By making these changes, the
password field /will/ be focused after reappearing, which is less
annoying for heavy keyboard users.
2. When a user does not have any accounts configured and he then
clicks the 'Add chat room' menu item, an NPE will occur, since the
code assumes that an element is selected in the account combobox.
However, since there are no accounts available, the combobox selection
will return null, resulting in a NPE. Now checks instance instead of
assuming existence.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

        You can merge this Pull Request by running

  git pull https://github.com/cobratbq/jitsi master

Or view, comment on, or merge it at:

  https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi/pull/14

        Commit Summary

  * Don't allow focusing on static labels.
  * Fix NPE: Only set nick name if provider instance is available.

        File Changes

  * *M*
    src/net/java/sip/communicator/impl/gui/main/chatroomslist/ChatRoomTableDialog.java
    <https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi/pull/14/files#diff-0> (6)
  * *M*
    src/net/java/sip/communicator/plugin/desktoputil/MasterPasswordInputDialog.java
    <https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi/pull/14/files#diff-1> (2)

        Patch Links:

  * https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi/pull/14.patch
  * https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi/pull/14.diff

_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@jitsi.org
Unsubscribe instructions and other list options:
http://lists.jitsi.org/mailman/listinfo/dev


#3

I committed b5110e08d21ccf8748f4682fdc937d10a3502bb4, but I couldn't take 96d8e898d5f6949ce786869f93878e5be82fef35 because I think you confused ChatRoomProviderWrapper with ChatRoomWrapper. I fixed it slightly different in b61023e00475abe029dac7235d432c004cf66a8f though.

Thanks!

···

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi/pull/14#issuecomment-32101208


#4

Closed #14.

···

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi/pull/14


#5

I committed b5110e0, but I couldn't take
        96d8e89 because I think you
        confused ChatRoomProviderWrapper with ChatRoomWrapper. I fixed
        it slightly different in b61023e though.
      Thanks!

···

On 01/11/2014 06:08 PM, Ingo Bauersachs wrote:
    
      —
        Reply to this email directly or view
          it on GitHub.
    
    Yeah, nice catch. The instanceof check is faulty ofcourse :-/
    Thanks for the heads-up.--
Danny

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi/pull/14#issuecomment-32108203