QStackedWidget: How to check if the next widget should be shown
-
the idea would be, that you emit the signal, as soon as your function verifies, that the login was successful !
void LoginWidget::on_pushButton_clicked() { QString username = ui->lineEdit_2->text(); QString password = ui->lineEdit->text(); if(username == "Test" && password == "Test123") { emit loginSuccessful(); } }
-
@hobbyProgrammer
Subject to @J-Hilk suggesting an alternative, as I wrote earlier retain yourloginSuccesfull()
as the slot for the pushbutton click. Have itemit
a signal you define on successful validation of the widgets, the signal is a separate thing from your function which you must define as per the Qt/C++ rules.EDIT OK, @J-Hilk's code is the same thing, it's just that he has defined the pushbutton slot as
on_pushButton_clicked()
and the signal aslogInSuccessful
, so there is no longer any (non-signal) function namedloginSuccesfull()
. -
@JonB alright, so using that code and these lines:
LoginWidget *login = qobject_cast<LoginWidget*>(ui->stackedWidget->widget(0)); connect(login, SIGNAL(loginSuccesfull()), this, SLOT(showApp()));
should result in showApp to happen anytime the login was succesfull?
-
@hobbyProgrammer
I'm hoping so! Did you try it? -
@JonB yes and it didn't work. I tried debugging but I can't seem to find what's going wrong. It hits the code where the emit loginSuccessfull() is set, but it doesn't go to the SLOT where it's connected to and it ends in :
while (!d->exit.loadAcquire()) processEvents(flags | WaitForMoreEvents | EventLoopExec);
-
@hobbyProgrammer Did you make sure
connect(login, SIGNAL(loginSuccesfull()), this, SLOT(showApp()));
succeeded? And is this "login" the one you're actually showing?
-
@hobbyProgrammer And connect succeeded?
-
@hobbyProgrammer said in QStackedWidget: How to check if the next widget should be shown:
but I don't think so
Then it can't work.
Use new Qt5 connect syntax to be sure signal/slot are really connected:connect(login, &LoginWidget::loginSuccesfull, this, &MainWindow::showApp);
-
Because this is getting out of hand: