If:
1) An app is open in a tag
2) A new tag is created
3) The app is closed in the first tag
4) The first tag is deleted
5) The new tag is deleted
Then this history would try to restore an inactive tag without
a screen. Bad things will then happen.
Reported on IRC. I am not sure why swap() is not enough, but the
old code removed before the mouse refactor did this, so apparently
it is necessary.
The fix has been reported to work by spyroboy on IRC, thanks!
First some reminder on how client geometries works (in X11, awesome just copied
that!):
- The position (x,y) defines where the border of the client begins
- This means that the content starts at (x+border_width,y+border_width)
- However, the size is the size of the client without border
- Thus, the client covers the rectangle from (x,y) to (x+2*bw,y+2*bw)
The client snapping code got this wrong. It only deals with rectangles and thus
for things to work as expected, the width/height have to be increased by two
times the border width. When snapping a client against other visible clients,
the geometry of the client to snap against wasn't calculated correctly.
This was apparently noticed at one point and worked around by decreasing the
position by two times the border width. While this is terribly wrong, it
actually makes things work correctly when snapping to the right or bottom edge
of a client, but breaks for the other edges.
Fix this by just calculating things correctly.
This is based on a patch from jk411.
Fixes: https://github.com/awesomeWM/awesome/issues/928
Signed-off-by: Uli Schlachter <psychon@znc.in>
The requirement to call add_signal() was added to catch typos. However, this
requirement became increasingly annoying with property::<name> signals and e.g.
gears.object allowing arbitrary properties to be changed.
All of this ended up in a single commit because tests/examples fails if I first
let add_signal() emit a deprecation warning.
Signed-off-by: Uli Schlachter <psychon@znc.in>
There was already a bug, as self.active_child.visible
was used instead of self.active_child.wibox.visible
This caused some confusion that this attribute was a widget.
It wasn't.
The behavior was changed during the rewrite. This was a mistake
as it was assumed (wrongly) that nobody used this function with
wiboxes other than "wibars" (awful.wibox).
Fixes#917
Since the screen removal patchset, the tags properties were
cleaned too early. This caused code connecting to "property::activated"
to be called with the tag already partially deleted. For code depending
on those properties, such as radical.impl.taglist, this caused errors.
Apparently, there is such thing as not leaking enough...
Also try to clear the widgets from mywibox. This seem to help.
Time will tell.
Fixes#914, unfixes #808
Why:
* Two different (but related) concepts had the same name
* Users were confused for years on IRC
* The wibar name was already in use in some doc to avoid confusion
This was only partially implemented. The margins were substracted from
the area too early in the pipeline. Now, they are added when getting
the size and substracted when setting it. This way, the margins will
"survive" when a placement function set an absolute value in one of
the field. Previously, this caused one (or more) of the margins to
be lost.
The problem was that get_square_distance() made the screen one pixel larger to
the bottom/right than it really was. Thus, the (x+0,y+0)-pixel of a screen that
was below or to the right of some other screen had distance zero to both of
these screens.
This commit fixes the screen size computation and adds a small unit test for
getbycoord() and get_square_distance().
Reported by Elv13 here:
https://github.com/awesomeWM/awesome/pull/878#issuecomment-219272864
Signed-off-by: Uli Schlachter <psychon@znc.in>
Emmanuel Lepage Vallee
Uli Schlachter
Daniel Hahler
Uli Schlachter
actionless
Daniel Hahler