Conversation
4b40603 to
68b43a8
Compare
|
Memory usage comparison, it seems to be quite normal compared to a similar tray implementation: |
|
I'll look at this soon, sorry for the delay |
|
I just pushed tons of changes to fix all ruff issues to main, this should fix the pipeline. |
fea640c to
938a7a8
Compare
|
Done. Rebased too, hope it went well... :P |
|
The tray process is logging on my system. Are you in the input group? My devices submenu is empty and says "No presets configured" |
| pass | ||
| return mtimes | ||
|
|
||
| def _refresh_groups_silently(self) -> None: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is it important to silence discovery prints?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's to reduce log spam, not sure if you want it visible during normal operartion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
logger.update_verbosity is true for systray, what we can do is hide it behind a debug flag?
Though with the dbus change that log will be moved.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think _poll_state would only be important as long as the menu is open, right? If yes, this would also reduce log spam.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'll hold this open for now, I want dbus the change to land first.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about a .desktop file to autostart the tray?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What will the user expect?
If we just add it as is with a shortcut, it will always start the tray, however it will disappear when the user closes the GUI IF close to systray is disabled.
Perhaps we should sync that "state" instead, if close to systray is disabled it should never fire up the systray.
And rename it to "Enable systray" instead?
Yeah, I'm in the input group... and /etc/udev/rules.d/60-uinput.rules sets: It was early on I messed around with input permissions, but I think I added the above myself. |
Here's an attempt to implement optional systray support as discussed in PR #1333
The current implementation is that systray can be ran standalone or it can be toggled to run from the GUI, the end results are the same, just different ways of doing it.
I tried to keep systray behavior how the users generally expect systray implementaions to behave.
The logic was the hardest part.
EDIT:
Regarding the ruff warnings, it seems like ruff was bumped from 0.15.22 -> 0.16.0.