Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

8264297: Create implementation for NSAccessibilityProgressIndicator protocol peer #6462

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

@azuev-java
Copy link
Member

@azuev-java azuev-java commented Nov 18, 2021

Add component accessibility peer


Progress

  • Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
  • Commit message must refer to an issue
  • Change must be properly reviewed

Issue

  • JDK-8264297: Create implementation for NSAccessibilityProgressIndicator protocol peer

Reviewers

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/6462/head:pull/6462
$ git checkout pull/6462

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/6462
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/6462/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 6462

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 6462

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/6462.diff

…or protocol peer

Add implementation for the component accessibility peer
@bridgekeeper
Copy link

@bridgekeeper bridgekeeper bot commented Nov 18, 2021

👋 Welcome back kizune! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the rfr label Nov 18, 2021
@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Nov 18, 2021

@azuev-java The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:

  • client

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing list. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the client label Nov 18, 2021
@mlbridge
Copy link

@mlbridge mlbridge bot commented Nov 18, 2021

Webrevs

@victordyakov
Copy link

@victordyakov victordyakov commented Nov 18, 2021

@forantar please review

@victordyakov
Copy link

@victordyakov victordyakov commented Nov 18, 2021

@pankaj-bansal please review

Copy link

@pankaj-bansal pankaj-bansal left a comment

looks good to me

@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Nov 22, 2021

@azuev-java This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

8264297: Create implementation for NSAccessibilityProgressIndicator protocol peer

Reviewed-by: pbansal

You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed.

At the time when this comment was updated there had been 48 new commits pushed to the master branch:

  • ca31ed5: 8275448: [REDO] AArch64: Implement string_compare intrinsic in SVE
  • 4ff4301: 8224922: Access JavaFileObject from Element(s)
  • 0a9e76c: 8277485: Zero: Fix fast{i,f}access_0 bytecodes handling
  • 1c215f3: 8272773: Configurable card table card size
  • 1d7cef3: 8276662: Scalability bottleneck in SymbolTable::lookup_common()
  • c79a485: 8277494: [BACKOUT] JDK-8276150 Quarantined jpackage apps are labeled as "damaged"
  • 2ab43ec: 8273544: Increase test coverage for snippets
  • 2d4af22: 8277370: configure script cannot distinguish WSL version
  • a3406a1: 8277092: TestMetaspaceAllocationMT2.java#ndebug-default fails with "RuntimeException: Committed seems high: NNNN expected at most MMMM"
  • e47cc81: 8275386: Change nested classes in jdk.jlink to static nested classes
  • ... and 38 more: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/compare/91607436b79126ccb999deaf38a98209dbfe6ec1...master

As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the master branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the ready label Nov 22, 2021
@azuev-java
Copy link
Member Author

@azuev-java azuev-java commented Nov 22, 2021

/integrate

@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Nov 22, 2021

Going to push as commit 851a362.
Since your change was applied there have been 59 commits pushed to the master branch:

  • 6cf4cd1: 8273341: Update Siphash to version 1.0
  • e3911a8: 8277429: Conflicting jpackage static library name
  • 33e2a51: 8265795: vmTestbase/nsk/jvmti/AttachOnDemand/attach022/TestDescription.java fails when running with JEP 416
  • 22f12ac: 8277522: Make formatting of null consistent in Elements
  • e529865: 8277239: SIGSEGV in vrshift_reg_maskedNode::emit
  • 8683de5: 8274685: Documentation suggests there are ArbitrarilyJumpableGenerator when none
  • 6b4fbae: 8273792: JumpableGenerator.rngs() documentation refers to wrong method
  • d427c79: 8277428: G1: Move and inline G1STWIsAliveClosure::do_object_b
  • 32839ba: 8266593: vmTestbase/nsk/jvmti/PopFrame/popframe011 fails with "assert(java_thread == _state->get_thread()) failed: Must be"
  • 8051041: 8277534: Remove unused ReferenceProcessor::has_discovered_references
  • ... and 49 more: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/compare/91607436b79126ccb999deaf38a98209dbfe6ec1...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

@openjdk openjdk bot closed this Nov 22, 2021
@openjdk openjdk bot added integrated and removed ready rfr labels Nov 22, 2021
@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Nov 22, 2021

@azuev-java Pushed as commit 851a362.

💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
3 participants