setupUi is not a member of my QT application

[lfreeman6490]

@SGaist Doing that tells me that there is no appropriate default constructor. Do I have to change all instances of 'Pathloss' to 'Ui::Pathloss'?

[JoeCFD]

@lfreeman6490 They are defined in ui_pathloss.h. Open it and check if the class name is Ui_Pathloss. It is possible that the class name is Ui_pathloss?

[lfreeman6490]

@JoeCFD the class is named 'Ui_f_pathloss'. This was automated by QT so I didn't change it

[JoeCFD]

@lfreeman6490 That is a typical Qt error. You define it in Qt Designer with the matching class name.
Load your Qt ui file back to Qt Designer and set class name properly.

[lfreeman6490]

@JoeCFD So I should change that to Ui_Pathloss?

to look like this?

namespace Ui {
    class Ui_Pathloss: public Ui_Pathloss {};
    class FileDeleteProgressDialog: public Ui_FileDeleteProgressDialog {};
} // namespace Ui

[JoeCFD]

@lfreeman6490 You do not do this. Load your Qt ui file back to Qt Designer and set class name properly.
your class name is f_pathloss in the ui file. This is even not a good name.

[lfreeman6490]

@JoeCFD I did that and nothing changed, still getting the same error

[SGaist]

Fix what you have in your pathloss.h file to match what you have in your ui_pathloss.h file.

But it sure does look strange that there's such a name mismatch.

[lfreeman6490]

@SGaist I changed everything to be Ui_Pathloss. I now am getting a new error

"C2664: 'Ui_Ui_Pathloss::setupUi': cannot convert parameter 1 from 'Ui_Pathloss *const' to 'QFrame *'

[SGaist]

Did you modify anything else than what I suggested ?
What is your actual code ?

[lfreeman6490]

@SGaist main .cpp

#include "pathloss.h"
#include <QApplication>

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
    QApplication a(argc, argv);
    Ui_Pathloss w;
    w.show();
    
    return a.exec();
}

pathloss.cpp

#include "pathloss.h"
#include "ui_pathloss.h"

Ui_Pathloss::Ui_Pathloss(QWidget *parent):
    QWidget(parent),
    ui(new Ui::Ui_Pathloss)
{
    ui->setupUi(this);
}

Ui_Pathloss::~Ui_Pathloss()
{
    delete ui;
}

pathloss.h

#ifndef PATHLOSS_H
#define PATHLOSS_H

#include <QWidget>

namespace Ui {
class Ui_Pathloss;
}

class Ui_Pathloss : public QWidget
{
    Q_OBJECT
    
public:
    explicit Ui_Pathloss(QWidget *parent = 0);
    ~Ui_Pathloss();

private:
    Ui::Ui_Pathloss *ui;
};

#endif // PATHLOSS_H

my ui_Pathloss.h file is too long to post here, but this is the namespace at the bottom

namespace Ui {
    class Ui_Pathloss: public Ui_Pathloss {};
} // namespace Ui

QT_END_NAMESPACE

[JoeCFD]

This post is deleted!

[JoeCFD]

@JoeCFD Change your class to Pathloss in your ui file, not Ui_Pathloss.

[lfreeman6490]

@JoeCFD
throws an error at

{
    ui->setupUi(this);
}

"C2664: 'Ui_Ui_Pathloss::setupUi': cannot convert parameter 1 from 'Ui_Pathloss *const' to 'QFrame *'

[SGaist]

Beside what wrote @JoeCFD, it seems you are piling up the various suggestions you got.

You should go back to your starting state before doing anything else.

You should also take the time to read the Qt Designer documentation to understand what you should get.

[JoeCFD]

Your ui file looks similar like this:
https://doc.qt.io/archives/3.3/designer-manual-16.html
Widgets
<!DOCTYPE UI><UI version="3.1" stdsetdef="1">
<class>WinIntroPage</class>
<widget class="QWidget">
<property name="name">
<cstring>WinIntroPage</cstring>
</property>

see the class tag: change it from f_pathloss to Pathloss
That is the only thing you need to do. Then recompile your code.

[lfreeman6490]

@JoeCFD I have no instances of f_pathloss, I changed them all to Pathloss

@SGaist This basically is where I started from. Every change undoes the previous one. The difference between this and the original version is the 'f_pathloss' is now just 'Pathloss'

[JoeCFD]

@lfreeman6490 said in setupUi is not a member of my QT application:

ui_Pathloss.h

do not change ui_Pathloss.h because it is generated. Change pathloss.ui or Pathloss.ui file
Your class name has to match to the name defined in
<class>*****</class> in pathloss.ui or Pathloss.ui file

[SGaist]

Depending on what that interface contains, it could be simpler to just rebuilt it from scratch and be done with it.

[lfreeman6490]

@SGaist Yeah I think I might just do that. I've been at this all day. Thanks for trying to help. I appreciate it @JoeCFD