Manager::ServicesChanged properties

Manager::ServicesChanged properties

[Andrei Datcu]

Currently, the documentation states that

The dictionary with the properties might be empty in case none of
the properties have changed. Or only contains the
properties that have changed.
For newly added services the whole set of properties will be present.


Yet, the final paragraph also says:

This signal will only be triggered when the sort
order of the service list or the number of services
changes. It will not be emitted if only a property
of the service object changes.


Combining the two rules, I understand that the props dictionary is
either empty (for existing services) or it either contains the entire
props dict of the newly added service.

My question:

Since by inspecting the code (service.c::service_send_changed) this
seems to currently be the case, is there any particular reason why the
documentation doesn't state it explicitly? Was there ever the
possibility to get a partial dictionary? If not, would you consider a
patch to the documentation to make it clearer for the future?

Thanks,

Andrei Datcu

Re: Manager::ServicesChanged properties

[Daniel Wagner]

Hi Andrei,

On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 03:04:10PM +0300, Andrei Datcu wrote:
> Currently, the documentation states that
> 
> The dictionary with the properties might be empty in case none of
> the properties have changed. Or only contains the
> properties that have changed.
> For newly added services the whole set of properties will be present.
> 
> 
> Yet, the final paragraph also says:
> 
> This signal will only be triggered when the sort
> order of the service list or the number of services
> changes. It will not be emitted if only a property
> of the service object changes.
> 
> 
> Combining the two rules, I understand that the props dictionary is
> either empty (for existing services) or it either contains the entire
> props dict of the newly added service.
> 
> My question:
> 
> Since by inspecting the code (service.c::service_send_changed) this
> seems to currently be the case, is there any particular reason why the
> documentation doesn't state it explicitly?

Don't know, but I suspect Marcel wanted to stress the points
independently.

> Was there ever the possibility to get a partial dictionary?

As far I understand the current situation, this is not the case.

> If not, would you consider a
> patch to the documentation to make it clearer for the future?

Yes sure, please just send a patch.

Thanks,
Daniel