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

Bug: FileDialog: Profiler Save/Load does not make File-Extension (.Result) clear #19633

Closed
4 of 10 tasks
maurerle opened this issue Sep 27, 2022 · 1 comment
Closed
4 of 10 tasks

Comments

@maurerle
Copy link
Contributor

Issue Report Checklist

  • Searched the issues page for similar reports
  • Read the relevant sections of the Spyder Troubleshooting Guide and followed its advice
  • Reproduced the issue after updating with conda update spyder (or pip, if not using Anaconda)
  • Could not reproduce inside jupyter qtconsole (if console-related)
  • Tried basic troubleshooting (if a bug/error)
    • Restarted Spyder
    • Reset preferences with spyder --reset
    • Reinstalled the latest version of Anaconda
    • Tried the other applicable steps from the Troubleshooting Guide
  • Completed the Problem Description, Steps to Reproduce and Version sections below

Problem Description

The expected extension of the file is unclear if i try to load or save a profiling result.
This could be improved by providing better information, saving the file with extension if no extension was given and/or allowing to select "any file extension" in the save dialog.

This error was found on Gnome and its one of many filedialog integration things, but maybe this can be improved in the future :)

What steps reproduce the problem?

  1. Save Profile/Load Profile
  2. See that there is no file extension in the save dialog

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?

Paste Traceback/Error Below (if applicable)

PASTE TRACEBACK HERE

Versions

Python 3.10.4 64-bit | Qt 5.15.2 | PyQt5 5.15.6 | Linux 5.10.0-18-amd64

image

Dependencies

PASTE DEPENDENCIES HERE
@dalthviz
Copy link
Member

Hi @maurerle thank you for the feedback! Could this be related with #18684 ? And if so, maybe a similar approach as in #17790 could be implemented for this?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants