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>
This adds a test case where a `wibox.container.margin` with a
`wibox.widget.imagebox` as child is wrapped by a simple function call.
Check against regression in #3213.
Signed-off-by: Lucas Schwiderski <lucas@lschwiderski.de>
When less space is available than was asked, systray:draw() has to
compute the right base size so that all the icons fit into the available
space. This computation so far ignored the icon spacing, resulting in a
too large base size.
Fixes: https://github.com/awesomeWM/awesome/issues/2981
Signed-off-by: Uli Schlachter <psychon@znc.in>
This caused a behavior change it wasn't clear how to use the
permission API to change the focus mode.
The change will only take effect if the user override the API
level.
This also pulls in part of the permission framework to ensure
backward compatibility is kept.
`awful.autofocus` was always weird. It is a module part of `awful`,
but it was never part of `awful` `init.lua`. Rather, `rc.lua` was
the sole place it was used. It behave exactly like a request, but
predate them by years. As I cleanup the request:: API before the
permissions API gets formalized, this has to be fixed now.
It isn't deprecated in this commit because it makes too many tests
fail. Another pull request will solve that by adding the "API level"
concept to AwesomeWM so I can change the behavior without breaking
existing configs. With that, the behavior of `autofocus` will be
enabled by default with the permissions to disable it.
https://github.com/awesomeWM/awesome/issues/2596
Re-matched regex used elsewhere & updated test cases for "." in filename
Allowed for alternative extensions to be found even if specified
Reverted the change of behaviour but adjusted code for readability
Small readability change
Avoided delay searches that would never work
Untabify
Reverted possible [unlikely/undesired] behaviour changes
Untabify
This gets rid of the following output when running the unit tests:
2019-01-26 18:31:44 E: awesome: beautiful: error loading theme: got an empty table
2019-01-26 18:31:44 E: awesome: beautiful: error loading theme: got an empty table from: ./spec/beautiful/tests/Bad_1.lua
2019-01-26 18:31:44 E: awesome: beautiful: error loading theme: got a function from: ./spec/beautiful/tests/Bad_2.lua
2019-01-26 18:31:44 E: awesome: beautiful: error loading theme: got a number from: ./spec/beautiful/tests/Bad_3.lua
2019-01-26 18:31:44 E: awesome: beautiful: error loading theme: got a nil from: ./spec/beautiful/tests/Bad_4.lua
2019-01-26 18:31:44 E: awesome: Error during a protected call: ./spec/beautiful/tests/Bad_5.lua:2: attempt to index local 'var' (a nil value)
stack traceback:
./spec/beautiful/tests/Bad_5.lua:2: in main chunk
[C]: in function 'dofile'
[C]: in function 'xpcall'
lib/gears/protected_call.lua:36: in function <lib/gears/protected_call.lua:35>
(...tail calls...)
lib/beautiful/init.lua:224: in function 'init'
spec/beautiful/init_spec.lua:56: in function <spec/beautiful/init_spec.lua:25>
[C]: in function 'xpcall'
/usr/share/lua/5.2/busted/core.lua:178: in function 'safe'
/usr/share/lua/5.2/busted/init.lua:40: in function 'executor'
...
/usr/share/lua/5.2/busted/core.lua:312: in function 'execute'
/usr/share/lua/5.2/busted/block.lua:155: in function 'execute'
/usr/share/lua/5.2/busted/init.lua:7: in function 'executor'
/usr/share/lua/5.2/busted/core.lua:312: in function </usr/share/lua/5.2/busted/core.lua:312>
[C]: in function 'xpcall'
/usr/share/lua/5.2/busted/core.lua:178: in function 'safe'
/usr/share/lua/5.2/busted/core.lua:312: in function 'execute'
/usr/share/lua/5.2/busted/execute.lua:58: in function 'execute'
/usr/share/lua/5.2/busted/runner.lua:174: in function </usr/share/lua/5.2/busted/runner.lua:11>
/usr/bin/busted:3: in main chunk
[C]: in ?
2019-01-26 18:31:44 E: awesome: beautiful: error loading theme: got a nil from: ./spec/beautiful/tests/Bad_5.lua
2019-01-26 18:31:44 E: awesome: Error during a protected call: cannot open ./spec/beautiful/tests/NO_FILE: No such file or directory
stack traceback:
[C]: in function 'dofile'
[C]: in function 'xpcall'
lib/gears/protected_call.lua:36: in function <lib/gears/protected_call.lua:35>
(...tail calls...)
lib/beautiful/init.lua:224: in function 'init'
spec/beautiful/init_spec.lua:57: in function <spec/beautiful/init_spec.lua:25>
[C]: in function 'xpcall'
/usr/share/lua/5.2/busted/core.lua:178: in function 'safe'
/usr/share/lua/5.2/busted/init.lua:40: in function 'executor'
/usr/share/lua/5.2/busted/core.lua:312: in function </usr/share/lua/5.2/busted/core.lua:312>
...
/usr/share/lua/5.2/busted/core.lua:312: in function 'execute'
/usr/share/lua/5.2/busted/block.lua:155: in function 'execute'
/usr/share/lua/5.2/busted/init.lua:7: in function 'executor'
/usr/share/lua/5.2/busted/core.lua:312: in function </usr/share/lua/5.2/busted/core.lua:312>
[C]: in function 'xpcall'
/usr/share/lua/5.2/busted/core.lua:178: in function 'safe'
/usr/share/lua/5.2/busted/core.lua:312: in function 'execute'
/usr/share/lua/5.2/busted/execute.lua:58: in function 'execute'
/usr/share/lua/5.2/busted/runner.lua:174: in function </usr/share/lua/5.2/busted/runner.lua:11>
/usr/bin/busted:3: in main chunk
[C]: in ?
2019-01-26 18:31:44 E: awesome: beautiful: error loading theme: got a nil from: ./spec/beautiful/tests/NO_FILE
Signed-off-by: Uli Schlachter <psychon@znc.in>
This removes unused public functions from menubar.utils. This is not an
API break, because these functions were only added in commit
8d34201ec3, which is after v4.2. These new functions became
unused in commit e88f1e8735, not long after they were added.
Signed-off-by: Uli Schlachter <psychon@znc.in>
It is not possible to distribute 100px to three widgets equally. The
current version of wibox.layout.flex tries to do that anyway, by giving
each widget 33px and leaving one pixel outside of any widget. Thus, if
the widgets e.g. have a common background, this leads to a one pixel gap
in the background.
This patch changes the flex layout so that the extra pixel is assigned
to some widget instead. It does so by basically keeping a sum of
space_per_item for the widgets that was assigned so far. This sum is
rounded and when this leads to rounding, the corresponding child widget
gets an extra pixel.
More precisely, this tracks a pos as before. Widgets get their position
still assigned based on rounding pos. However, this now also remembers
this rounded position for the next iteration of the loop. This allows to
assign the size of widgets based on the difference between the current
and last rounded position.
(Possibly) fixes: https://github.com/awesomeWM/awesome/issues/2461
Signed-off-by: Uli Schlachter <psychon@znc.in>
When calling join with e.g. arguments (nil, {"a"}), then everything past
the nil was ignored, because the code internally used ipairs() to
iterate over the arguments and this stops at the first nil it
encounters.
Fix this by using select() to iterate over the arguments.
This also adds a unit test for this problem.
Signed-off-by: Uli Schlachter <psychon@znc.in>
mergify[bot]
Yauhen Kirylau
Emmanuel Lepage Vallée
Shay Agroskin
Lucas Schwiderski
Daniel Hahler
Grumph
handsome0hell
Uli Schlachter
Seth Barberee
Sorky
Sorky
Uli Schlachter
mergify[bot]
Daniel Hahler
Aire-One