[bitbake-devel] [PATCH 0/1][PULL] Hob2: A new implementation for Human Oriented Builder

[Wang, Shane]

Joshua Lock wrote on 2012-02-24:

> 
> 
> On 23/02/12 05:48, Dongxiao Xu wrote:
>> Hi Richard,
>> 
>> This pull request is a new implementation for Human Oriented Builder,
> please help to review and pull.
> 
> Please, let's not call it the Human Oriented Builder. It was always just
> Hob, not HOB - are we changing that now?
> 
>> Changes from previous pull requests:
>>   - Re-implemented a lot of code according to Belen's new GUI design.
> 
> This is really hard to review as a several thousand line patch... It's
> difficult to know where what seems like an odd decision in the code was
> made for a sane reason without any git history or code comments to
> follow the logic of the development.
> 
> The fact that the patch was rejected by the mailing list is a good
> indication that we need to separate into smaller logical commits.
> 
> I could review coding style, but that is probably pretty useless at this
> point and so  offer somewhat superficial comments below regarding UI
> implementation with Gtk+.
Sorry for that, it convinces me that a design document is useful.
The problem is because the UI was changed a lot in a short time, even though we compared with our previous version in Jan.
So, next time we will pay more attention to submit incremental patches.


> 
> First things first, I can't run the BitBake in the submitted branch:
> 
> joshual at shamshir:~/Projects/Yocto/poky/build [master *]
> $ ../bitbake/bin/bitbake -u hob
> 
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>    File "../bitbake/bin/bitbake", line 258, in <module>
>      ret = main() File "../bitbake/bin/bitbake", line 178, in main
>      ui_main = get_ui(configuration) File "../bitbake/bin/bitbake", line
>      68, in get_ui module = __import__("bb.ui", fromlist = [interface])
>      File "../bitbake/lib/bb/ui/hob.py", line 33, in <module> from
>      bb.ui.crumbs.hoblistmodel import RecipeListModel,
> PackageListModel
> 
> I found and ran a recent poky-contrib branch for Hob, though I've no
> idea if it reflects what's in this patch, just so that I had something
> to look at and offer feedback on.
> 
> The Build environment tab of the settings dialogue doesn't fit in the
> allocated space - I had to resize the dialogue to see Save and Cancel
> buttons. This is also true of the Others tab though less so.
> These buttons don't follow the GNOME HIG in several ways, perhaps this
> is intentional?

We didn't notice the code didn't follow the GNOME HIG, and thank you for your patches to fix it.

> 
> It's also worth noting that the visual style 'leaks' in the Settings
> dialogue and I see standard Gtk light-bulb info icons rather than the
> steely i displayed on the main page.
In the settings dialog, we didn't make any specific icon for tool tip.
On Ubuntu, it is a "i". On Fedora 16, it becomes a light-bulb. I am thinking how to make it?

> 
> The 'Package list may be incomplete' dialogue is a very nice piece of
> functionality but interface-wise I'd expect to see the buttons labelled
> along the lines of 'Get full list' 'View existing'.
Will consider to make them.

> 
> It seems like the Stop Build tracking isn't consistently reset between
> builds so when I was playing around started & stopped a build then
> played some more and started another build and tried to stop it I only
> had the option to Force Stop or Cancel...
OK.

> 
> Taking a look at the code the first thing I notice is multiples of 5 for
> spacing, why is that? I thought we'd agreed with Belen that we'd follow
> the GNOME HIG for consistent visuals amongst Gtk+ apps?
OK

> Further, there are still hard-coded colour values. Are these issues on
> the "to fix later" list?
Do you mean the green progress bar and others? For the progress bar, Jessica has a comment that she doesn't want see orange bar which is the default on Ubuntu but want to see a green one which is consistent with the running color in the build details.
For some buttons like "Just bake", we try to make it look the same as Belen's video.
Are you suggesting to set them default?

If not the above, the hard-coded color values should be fixed, we hope to include all color values in hobcolor.py


> 
> I'm not suggesting these hold up merging - just asking the question. I
> can play HIG zealot and write a patch once this is merged? I think it's
> important we present a professional GUI which matches the visuals of the
> host OS.
> 
> The buttons that act like tabs for changing between notebook pages (i.e.
> on the 'Package Selection' view) took me a long time to figure out as
> they look like they are depressed (mid-click) buttons for the inactive
> tabs and ready to click buttons for the active tabs - confusing visual.
I have the patches to fix it, and am cleaning them up for submission.

> 
> There's at least one instance of commented out code (a signal handler
> connection in builder.py) - we can probably drop those, right?
Do you mean to drop the handler instance in builder.py?
If so, how could the builder call the handler's functions?

> 
> Setting the size and position of windows on each launch (as in
> builder.py) is generally considered to be hostile to users - it should
> be sufficient to start with a sane default size and then as the UI
> allows the user to resize it we should remember the size for the next
> launch.
OK. But sometimes we should consider the screen dimension. For instance the builder, the main window, I bet on a smaller screen (say, 800X600) the visual components will look ugly. How can I address the problem? For the position of the window, I agree.


> 
> This UI has come on leaps and bounds and I look forward to seeing this
> foundation polished over the coming weeks. Maybe I can even submit some
> changes myself.
If you can help on some, that would be great. Thank you, Josh.

> 
> Hopefully this splash of feedback gives you something to work with...
> 
> Cheers,
> Joshua