Bug 506082 - DateTimePicker panel accessible should not have "focusable" and "focused" states
Summary: DateTimePicker panel accessible should not have "focusable" and "focused" states
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: UI Automation
Classification: Mono
Component: Winforms - ATK (show other bugs)
Version: Release 1.0
Hardware: x86 openSUSE 11.1
: P3 - Medium : Normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: E-mail List
QA Contact: E-mail List
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2009-05-21 17:21 UTC by Brian Merrell
Modified: 2009-07-02 03:35 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Found By: Integration Test
Services Priority:
Business Priority:
Blocker: ---
Marketing QA Status: ---
IT Deployment: ---

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Brian Merrell 2009-05-21 17:21:06 UTC 
PROBLEM STATEMENT

The bridge functional spec[1] shows that a "panel" accessible does not have a "focusable" state.  Additionally, Brad state in Bug 483735 that "as far as I understand is correct -- the DateTimePicker can't be focused, only it's children can."  In spite of this, the DateTimePicker panel accessible have the "focusable" and the "focused" state when the DateTimePicker sample applications are run.

REPRO

1.  Run Accerciser, open the "Interface Viewer" tab, and expand the "Accessible" expander
2.  Run datetimepicker_dropdown.py or datetimepicker_showupdown.py
3.  In Accerciser's left pane, browse to and select the "panel" accessible of the sample application.  This accessible apparently represents the DateTimePicker as a whole.
4.  Click on the sample application's title bar to activate the window
5.  Notice the "States" list for the selected accessible in the interface viewer

RESULTS

The panel accessible has both the "focusable" and "focused" states.

EXPECTED RESULTS

The panel accessible should not have the "focusable" state, which also means that it should not have the "focused" state.

COMMENTS

Again, Bug 483735 might have some relevant information.