<html><head></head><body>Hi Nyall, all,<br>so you're implicitly suggesting refactoring this code entirely, right?<br>I imagine this would be a major effort. Does anybody have an idea of the order of magnitude of the work involved?<br>Regards.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 15 July 2019 01:58:53 CEST, Nyall Dawson <nyall.dawson@gmail.com> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre class="k9mail">On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 at 00:24, Alessandro Pasotti <apasotti@gmail.com> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"><br><br><br> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 3:03 PM Paolo Cavallini <cavallini@faunalia.it> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> Hi Richard,<br><br> On 10/07/19 20:03, Richard Duivenvoorde wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"> Hi Devs,<br><br> may I draw ones attention to this (in my view pretty serious) issue:<br><br> <a href="https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/issues/28914">https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/issues/28914</a><br><br> Showing off QGIS in combination with a geopackage failed today,<br> because 'it just does *NOT* work' :-)<br><br> Wanted to create an issue and then found the above one<br> (which is a duplicate of #29035, #29166, #29766 etc)<br> So added a test dataset to the issue.<br><br> The 'Move selection on top' in the attribute table is broken for already<br> some versions of QGIS. Not sure about others, but I often show this to<br> newbies, to find their selected features.<br><br> I think this kind of basic functionality should not be broken for such a<br> long time in our beloved QGIS is it?<br></blockquote><br> thanks a lot for the report. I'm also surprised, as I assumed this basic<br> functionality was covered by tests. Should we invest more in adding<br> tests in this area?<br></blockquote><br><br><br> Test on the GUI are very very limited, and they are also quite hard to write and to maintain.<br><br> If you add that the attribute table code has been crying for a serious refactory since 2.x you know why it's broken (again).<br><br> But yes, we should invest more in the tests AND in the refactoring of the code, the problem IMO with the attribute table is that it would be a *huge* effort.<br></blockquote><br>Also (it's not defence, but...) I seem to recall this particular bug<br>popping up in various forms since forever. Someone will post a<br>(partial?) fix, and then a month later the bug will be bug (maybe in<br>another form?). In any case, I very much doubt this is a 3.x<br>regression, rather just some piece of fragile code which was<br>sticky-taped together in the first place, and that sticky-tape keeps<br>coming undone.<br><br>Unfortunately (and I hate to give bad news like this), but I'm with<br>Alessandro here. Attribute table is the most fragile code left in<br>modern QGIS versions. It's inefficient, difficult to debug, constantly<br>regressing, and the code is a nightmare mix of interdependent circular<br>signals. The code is honestly horrible to work with, which is another<br>reason I suspect attribute table bugs are "overlooked" during bug<br>fixing sprints...<br><br>Nyall<br></pre></blockquote></div><br>-- <br>Sorry for being short</body></html>