We treat wake up requests the same as user activity, as in general
the two behave the same: Turn on the screen and reset the idle watch
until the system becomes idle again.
The big exception is when the screen isn't locked yet. In that case
user activity should interrupt the automatic screen lock, but a
request to wake-up the screen (like showing a notification) should
not.
Address this by ignoring wake-up requests while the screen shield
isn't active, as we can expect the screen to still be turned on at
that point.
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-shell/-/issues/5719
Part-of: <https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-shell/-/merge_requests/2413>
After porting the more complex cases - in particular those that
affect a module's API - we are left with straight-forward D-Bus
method calls that can be moved to promise-based wrappers in one
go.
For consistency, this also switches from Remote to Async where
the call result is ignored.
Part-of: <https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-shell/-/merge_requests/2344>
The LoginManager abstraction is still mostly callback-based, not
least because the methods are thin wrappers around logind D-Bus
calls.
However as gjs' dbus wrapper now generates promised-based wrappers
as well, we can implement a proper async API just as naturally.
Part-of: <https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-shell/-/merge_requests/2344>
Introduce a new class, EventEmitter, which implements signal
handling for pure JavaScript classes. EventEmitter still
utilizes GJS' addSignalMethods internally.
EventEmitter allows static typechecking to understand the
structure of event-emitting JS classes and makes creating
child classes simpler.
The name 'EventEmitter' mirrors a common name for this pattern
in Node and in JS libraries.
Part-of: <https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-shell/-/merge_requests/2043>
We have made good progress on object literals as well, although there
are still a lot that use the old style, given how ubiquitous object
literals are.
But the needed reindentation isn't overly intrusive, as changes are
limited to the object literals themselves (i.e. they don't affect
surrounding code).
And given that object literals account for quite a bit of the remaining
differences between regular and legacy rules, doing the transition now
is still worthwhile.
Part-of: <https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-shell/-/merge_requests/2200>
All callers have been updated to keep this handle to identify their
own grab.
Also, optionally use the windowing state to determine whether
the grab is suitable for the specific uses. This removes the need
to trying to grab twice in the places where we settle for a keyboard
grab.
Part-of: <https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-shell/-/merge_requests/2045>
There was a potential issue when suspend was inhibited and immediately
uninhibited again before the creation of the inhibitor has finished.
Then the new inhibitor would be kept active.
Part-of: <https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-shell/-/merge_requests/1927>
ScreenShield::_syncInhibitor() was closing (and recreating) the
inhibitor everytime it was called, even if no change was needed.
This gets called in various places, including on property changes in
the login1 dbus object. These happen by the time logind already started
suspending at which point new inhibitors can no longer be created. It is
only waiting for existing inhibitors to be closed, so closing the
inhibitor without a new inhibitor will cause the suspending to proceed
immediately if no other inhibitors are present. This can also happen
before the lock screen is shown, which will then complete after resume.
Fix this by keeping track of the expected inhibition state and only
create or close inhibitors if there was a change to that.
Fixes https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-shell/-/issues/3736
Part-of: <https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-shell/-/merge_requests/1927>
This one was moved to Meta.Context as well.
I don't know why the `debugexit` command quit with an error code
(it dates back all the way to commit 98bd590a5d). Terminating on
request by the user doesn't sound like an error, so don't replicate
that particular behavior.
Part-of: <https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-shell/-/merge_requests/1917>
Currently the hint reflects the `active` state, which effectively
corresponds to the screen blank. That's a bit surprising considering
the name, plus the `active` state is already exposed by the ScreenSaver
D-Bus interface for anyone interested.
It seems reasonable that the `LockedHint` property reflects the lock
state, so change the handling to do exactly that.
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-shell/-/issues/351
Part-of: <https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-shell/-/merge_requests/1561>
The screen shield code listens for motion events on the stage
so that it can hide the pointer until the user moves the mouse.
Unfortunately, if the user never moves the mouse, the signal
handler connection gets leaked.
This commit makes sure the connection gets disconnected when the
shield goes away.
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-shell/-/merge_requests/1459
The screen shield watches for motion events to know to display
the pointer when the user wiggles their mouse.
It checks for motion events by looking at the event type and
seeing if it is of type `Clutter.EventType.MOTION`. To do this
comparison it uses the equality operator (==). Using the equality
operator isn't considered best practice, because it can returns true
when comparing disparate types, if those types happen to be equivalent
after coersion.
From a code resiliance point of view, it's better to use the
identity operator (===), which requires both sides of the comparison
to be of the same type.
As a policy, any legacy code that gets changed or moved should be
switched away from the equality operator to the identity operator, if
appropriate.
This commit makes that change as prep work for a fix to that part of
the code.
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-shell/-/merge_requests/1459
Normally, we inhibit suspend while locking the screen. But in the
session mode used for gnome-initial-setup locking is not supported, so
in that case this inhibit call is pointless and should be avoided.
Without this patch you get the following error when you suspend and
resume during initial setup:
JS ERROR: Error getting systemd inhibitor: Gio.IOErrorEnum:
GDBus.Error:org.freedesktop.login1.OperationInProgress: The operation
inhibition has been requested for is already running
_promisify/proto[asyncFunc]/</<@resource:///org/gnome/gjs/modules/core/overrides/Gio.js:435:45
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-shell/-/merge_requests/1213
On Fedora 32 if you close the laptop lid during gnome-initial-setup,
gnome-shell hits this error:
JS ERROR: Exception in callback for signal: prepare-for-sleep: TypeError: this._dialog is undefined
_resetLockScreen@resource:///org/gnome/shell/ui/screenShield.js:434:9
activate@resource:///org/gnome/shell/ui/screenShield.js:571:14
lock@resource:///org/gnome/shell/ui/screenShield.js:617:14
_prepareForSleep@resource:///org/gnome/shell/ui/screenShield.js:219:22
_emit@resource:///org/gnome/gjs/modules/core/_signals.js:133:47
_prepareForSleep@resource:///org/gnome/shell/misc/loginManager.js:198:14
_emit@resource:///org/gnome/gjs/modules/core/_signals.js:133:47
_convertToNativeSignal@resource:///org/gnome/gjs/modules/core/overrides/Gio.js:169:19
This is because _ensureUnlockDialog() hit its first early return. So
return early from activate() in that case, so this._dialog doesn't get
used while it's null.
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-shell/-/merge_requests/1213
Usually the screen is woken up before the shield is deactivated, but
it is also possible to unlock the session programmatically via the
org.gnome.ScreenSaver D-Bus API.
The intention is very likely not to unlock a turned off screen in
that case. Nor does it seem like a good idea to change the lock
state without any indication.
Waking up the screen is more likely to meet expectations and is
more reasonable too, so do that.
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-shell/-/merge_requests/1158
xgettext gained some support for template strings, and no longer
fails when encountering '/' somewhere between backticks.
Unfortunately its support is still buggy as hell, and it is now
silently dropping translatable strings, yay. I hate making the
code worse, but until xgettext really gets its shit together,
the only viable way forward seems to be to not use template
strings in any files listed in POTFILES.
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-shell/merge_requests/1014
With the old screen shield, we were simply hiding the lightboxes to show
the shield when the user became active after activating the shield but
before locking the screen (that is, when using a lock-delay).
However now that the shield is gone, we end up showing the unlock dialog
even though we are not actually locked.
We probably don't want to add back a shield-like mode (that is, a way to
raise the unlock dialog without authentication when we aren't locked),
so just deactivate the whole shield when the user becomes active again
before the lock kicks in.
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-shell/issues/2213
There is nothing else to be focused in the lock screen itself -- the
top bar is already handled elsewhere, and the dialog manages itself
now.
Remove the lock screen group from the Ctrl-Alt-Tab manager.
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-shell/merge_requests/872
Now that the screen shield is gone (at least, as it used to
be), the corresponding session mode is not necessary anymore
as well.
Remove the 'lock-screen' session mode, and the corresponding
CSS.
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-shell/merge_requests/872
Pretty much what the commit title says.
This gives the lock shield actor another role: instead of
being the interactive screen shield, make it the invisible
actor that prevents interacting with windows while the
unlock dialog is sliding down.
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-shell/merge_requests/872
Activating a dialog is slightly different from opening it; the
former is about showing the user authentication widgetry, while
the latter is about creating it and pre-allocating the necessary
resources.
Activate the screen shield dialog when necessary.
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-shell/merge_requests/872
The 'onPrimary' argument was being passed to dialog.open(). Turns out,
neither UnlockDialog nor LoginDialog use this parameter.
Remove the unnecessary 'onPrimary' parameter, and cleanup the related
code.
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-shell/merge_requests/872
