Check feasability of the "ToDo"s in Storeman's source files

[Olf0]

trafficstars

A fgrep -inr "todo" . reveals:

./src/ornapplication.cpp:295: // TODO: Try to avoid using QTimer here ~~./src/harbour-storeman.cpp:59: // TODO: Available in Qt.application object since Qt 5.9~~ ./src/ornclient.cpp:335: // TODO: Remove later ./src/storeman.cpp:105: // TODO: Remove later ./qml/components/AppPageMenu.qml:76: // TODO: This also should be shown for apps with no solved packages ~~./qml/harbour-storeman.qml:12: // TODO: Use Qt.application.displayName (available since Qt 5.9)~~

Note that the minimal supported SailfishOS version is (and should stay) 3.1.0. Hence check that SFOS 3.1.0 uses Qt ≥ 5.9, first (for ./src/harbour-storeman.cpp:59 and ./qml/harbour-storeman.qml:12).

[nephros]

Note that the minimal supported SailfishOS version is (and should stay) 3.1.0. Hence check that SFOS 3.1.0 uses Qt ≥ 5.9, first (for ./src/harbour-storeman.cpp:59 and ./qml/harbour-storeman.qml:12).

If we want to be really particular about it we could #if QT_VERSION < QT_VERSION_CHECK(5, 9, 0) around those in the .cpp, and check for undefined in QML so we are source-compatible with either Qt version.

But, even on SFOS 4.4 we are on Qt version 5.6 so this is rather moot.

Also, if we decide to become Sailsail-compatible, we may just choose a user-friendly Qt.application.name="Storeman" and not need the displayName at all.

[Olf0]

Note that the minimal supported SailfishOS version is (and should stay) 3.1.0. Hence check that SFOS 3.1.0 uses Qt ≥ 5.9, first (for ./src/harbour-storeman.cpp:59 and ./qml/harbour-storeman.qml:12).

If we want to be really particular about it we could #if QT_VERSION < QT_VERSION_CHECK(5, 9, 0) around those in the .cpp, and check for undefined in QML so we are source-compatible with either Qt version.

But, even on SFOS 4.4 we are on Qt version 5.6 so this is rather moot.

Thank you for looking this up; I had that gut feeling that the Qt version used by current SFOS releases was even older, but did not have the time to confirm this.

Also, if we decide to become Sailjail-compatible, we may just choose a user-friendly Qt.application.name="Storeman" and not need the displayName at all.

Yes, that makes sense. Why don't you include that in your branch (rename-service seems to be the one with all changes accumulated). I already updated the corresponding comments with your considerations discussed here as ~~PR 2 there~~ (closed unmerged, for reasons read there), which ultimately became PR 357 here.