This (a combined action for restoring the limits) was an approach I'd considered during my initial implementation. That's why there was the restorechargelimit action. I failed to remove it / still experimented with it a bit. I still wanted to feature a "normal" .kcfg config, and discarded a mirrored config.
So I ended up taking a different approach with !253, as I wanted to keep it as lean as possible to get some feedback and then make changes based on that. I fully understand that other developers do not have the time to give the requested feedback at the moment, so the MR has stalled.
Also, the behaviour of my implementation was consistent with that found in other KCMs. Except for the rights thing. It's still not clear why we ask for root privileges at all (@broulik) and other settings (like screen brightness) do not. I would prefer to not require elevated privileges. This would allow us to add features such as charge limits to the power management widget.
Furthermore, it would also remove the requirement for a mirrored config path, which - as I understand it - is just in place to fulfil exactly the forced root permissions.
PS: I would prefer the nomenclature restorechargelimit or restorechargelimit. It is more inclusive towards MR !248 and potential future implementations.
