Opened 12 years ago

Closed 12 years ago

#4059 closed enhancement (fixed)

PackageInstaller needs a "Yes to all" button in dialog box

Reported by: scottmc Owned by: sil2100
Priority: normal Milestone: R1
Component: Applications/PackageInstaller Version: R1/pre-alpha1
Keywords: Cc: sil2100@…
Blocked By: Blocking:
Platform: All


When reinstalling from a pkg file sometimes the files already exist, so you get a dialog box where it asks if you want to overwrite it, and your options are yes, no, and abort. It would be nice to have an option to answer "Yes to all".

Attachments (3)

yes-to-all.png (27.2 KB ) - added by scottmc 12 years ago.
Not much fun clicking yes 54 times…
remember_filereplace_fix.diff (15.3 KB ) - added by sil2100 12 years ago.
Possible fix of the problem
remember_filereplace_fix_2.diff (15.3 KB ) - added by sil2100 12 years ago.
Second revision of the patch

Download all attachments as: .zip

Change History (8)

by scottmc, 12 years ago

Attachment: yes-to-all.png added

Not much fun clicking yes 54 times...

comment:1 by sil2100, 12 years ago

Cc: sil2100@… added
Status: newassigned

Indeed, I will take care of it ASAP.

by sil2100, 12 years ago

Possible fix of the problem

comment:2 by sil2100, 12 years ago

I am sorry this took so long. I made this patch a few days ago, but the tracker was down, and I had to leave for a trip later that day. But I finally found a place to connect to.

This patch does the thing in mention a bit differently. Since the maximum number of buttons in a BAlarm is 3, I couldn't add a 'Yes to all' button - it's not really a good idea anyway, since the number of buttons would make the alarm less readable. Instead, when a conflict appears, a second dialog box appears asking the user if the PackageInstaller should remember the previous choice for all conflicts in the future. Right now the installer will ask only once, but a 'Ask later' button is possible - although I can't find as much use to such thing, it would probably just unnecessarily bloat the alert.

I also exported the user asking mechanism to the View instead of the inner structures. This way seems much better. Tested on hrev31688.

comment:3 by stippi, 12 years ago

The patch looks pretty nice to me, although I have not actually looked for any bugs. You have commit access, right? ;-) My suggestions for improvements would be two things:

1) You should never use wording in the UI that makes the computer into a person ("Should I remove the file..."). Instead, use passive language like "Should the file be removed...". That sounds much more professional.

2) Maybe "fCurrentPolicy" is not the best name. Policy for what? Perhaps "fCurrentItemExistsPolicy" would be better.

comment:4 by sil2100, 12 years ago

Thanks for reviewing the patch, stippi. I do not have commit access, so it will be necessary for someone to apply the patch for me. I have fixed the issues you have highlighted and attached the patch here as well. Thanks!

by sil2100, 12 years ago

Second revision of the patch

comment:5 by axeld, 12 years ago

Resolution: fixed
Status: assignedclosed

Applied in hrev32161 with some minor style changes (most notably, removed some extraneous parenthesis in combination with the '&' operator). Thanks!

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.