* horizontal/vertical scaling/stretch
* max scaling factor
* vertical/horizontal align instead of hardcoded top-left
* scaling_quality, if Cairo cooperates
It also fixes the clip_shape when resize = false.
Add an explicite `@property` tag to the `wibox.layout.flex` doc
comments to override the `fill_space` property from
`wibox.layout.fixed` and mark it as hidden thanks to `@hidden`.
For each widget, the layout function checks whether placing it would
make the function exceed the allowed geometry.
If not, the function places both the widget and a spacing widget.
This check ignores the size of the spacing widget itself, this can cause
overloading of widgets on top of each other.
For example, the following scenario with these widgets:
widgets: widget1 { width = 10, height = 10 }
widget2 { width = 10, height = 10 }
widget3 { width = 10, height = 10 }
and a call to horizontal layout with the
{ width = 10, height = 10, spacing = -5 } parameters.
The function would layout the widgets the following way:
{
widget1: { x = 0, y = 0, width = 10, height = 10 }
spacing: { x = 5, y = 0, width = 5, height = 10 }
widget2: { x = 5, y = 0, width = 5, height = 10 }
spacing: { x = 5, y = 0, width = 5, height = 10 }
widget3: { x = 5, y = 0, width = 5, height = 10 }
}
This behaviour would be the same for any number of widgets for negative
layout.
This patch changes the layout function to check whether the current
widget uses up the whole space.
It also removes 'pos' variable. Its purpose isn't intuitive in the
presence of x and y. This helps to understand where each widget is
placed now that x, y don't hold the end location of the widget in the
previous loop iteration.
The result of the previous example becomes:
{
widget1: { x = 0, y = 0, width = 10, height = 10 }
}
While this might not be the wanted behaviour exactly, distinguishing
between the scenario where 2 widgets are drawn and a scenario where 3
are drawn might complicate the layout function too much.
This patch also adds unit testing that catches the described behaviour.
Signed-off-by: Shay Agroskin <agrosshay@gmail.com>
The fit function is called twice in row.
- The first time it gets the maximum available width, and returns how
much of it it needs (with 0 spacing it would be 477)
- The second time the available width it gets is the same as it returned
last phase (and probably is expected to return the same result again)
The width fit requests is the total width of all widgets together + the
spacing (e.g. if each tag widget is 53 px and spacing is -10 then the
requested width 53 * 9 - 80).
The function tries to first fit all its widgets (the tag numbers) in the
amount of width it received, and only then adds the spacing to it. This
is problematic because in the second phase the widgets need to fit
themselves in the same width they requested earlier minus the spacing
(in case of negative spacing). This is of course impossible and so some
widgets are just not being drawn correctly.
This patch makes fit function take into account the spacing while
placing the widgets and not afterwards.
Also add unit-testing that test the bug described.
Signed-off-by: Shay Agroskin <agrosshay@gmail.com>
The function has several expressions of the form
if self._private.dir == "y" then
This patch stores the result of
self._private.dir == "y"
to avoid code duplication.
Also remove the 'used_in_dir' and 'in_dir' variables since their values
can be calculated using other variables in the function and updating
them individually is error prone.
This patch doesn't do any functional changes.
Signed-off-by: Shay Agroskin <agrosshay@gmail.com>
mergify[bot]
Emmanuel Lepage Vallee
actionless
Aire-One
Lucas Schwiderski
Shay Agroskin
James R
Daniel Hahler