Restore NVDA process helper's name

[SaschaCowley]

Link to issue number:

Fixes #16094

Summary of the issue:

UAC requests were informing users that "A free and open source screen reader for Microsoft Windows" wanted to make changes to their PC.

Description of user facing changes

Changed back to the old behaviour where UAC dialogs called the launcher "NVDA".

Description of development approach

Updated nvda_slave.pyw's script in setup.py to have version_info.description be name rather than description.

Testing strategy:

Created self-signed build and attempted install to ensure the change had taken effect.

Known issues with pull request:

None.

Code Review Checklist:

• [x] Documentation:
  • Change log entry
  • User Documentation
  • Developer / Technical Documentation
  • Context sensitive help for GUI changes
• [x] Testing:
  • Unit tests
  • System (end to end) tests
  • Manual testing
• [x] UX of all users considered:
  • Speech
  • Braille
  • Low Vision
  • Different web browsers
  • Localization in other languages / culture than English
• [x] API is compatible with existing add-ons.
• [x] Security precautions taken.

[CyrilleB79]

Just a detail for clarity:

@SaschaCowley could you please modify the current PR's title to avoid the word "Revert"? Using "Revert" is a bit confusing and lets think that a previously merged PR has to be reverted.

What about the following instead? "Restore NVDA process helper's name"

[seanbudd]

before merging this, this need to be retargeted to beta and rebased on beta

[seanbudd]

Hi @SaschaCowley - this still need to be rebased on beta (git rebase -i beta)

[XLTechie]

@SaschaCowley did you mean to push 102 commits on this? You're at 175 commits now, modifying 146 files. It appears to graft in all of the diff between beta and master.

[SaschaCowley]

@SaschaCowley did you mean to push 102 commits on this? You're at 175 commits now, modifying 146 files. It appears to graft in all of the diff between beta and master.

Major mess-up on my part, I think it's fixed now 😅

[XLTechie]

Yeah, looks like it.

Avoiding (or at least fixing) this sort of thing, is one of the multiple reasons why I work in a work branch, and check that out into a PR only branch. Then if I royally screw something up, I can just delete the PR branch locally, check it out from the base again, cherry-pick my commits on top of it, and force-push a new copy to the remote. It preserves the most important part of my work in the work branch, which I can rebase or whatever to my heart's content with nobody the wiser. :)