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.
It was set as `module` instead of `class` because ldoc was confused
set shown the methods as functions and functions as methods.
This commit set the explicit section so ldoc don't gress (wrongly)
Emmanuel Lepage Vallée
Uli Schlachter
Daniel Hahler
Uli Schlachter
Max