The deprecation wrapper that we still have for this function didn't return
anything. However, awful.util.pread() used to return strings. This breaks
script.
Work around this by returning an empty string. That way code will still break,
but at least it should not error out.
Signed-off-by: Uli Schlachter <psychon@znc.in>
The default config creates the same set of tags for all screens ("1" to "9"). An
awful.rules-rule with e.g. screen = 2, tag = "3" should obviously tag matching
clients with tag "3" of the second screen.
However, the implementation used the first matching tag in the list of all tags
and thus the client ended up tagged with tag "3" from screen 1. Fix this by
calling find_by_name() with the screen that the client is assigned to.
The existing implementation of awful.rules guarantees that any
"screen"-properties are applied before the code touched by this commit is run,
thus this should always work.
This commit does not add a test catching this because we are currently quite bad
at testing multi-screen scenarios and I don't want to invent the necessary
machinery right now.
Fixes: https://github.com/awesomeWM/awesome/issues/988
Signed-off-by: Uli Schlachter <psychon@znc.in>
Commit 0318c61328 added an image for the minimize button which was
missing before. However, only the default theme and xresources where fixed to
contain the path to the image.
This commit adds the path to all themes.
Also, minimized clients aren't visible, just as closed (=killed) clients aren't
visible. Thus, we don't need an "active" version of this image.
This commit makes us handle the image for the minimize button just like we
handle the close button: There is no difference between "active" and "inactive"
and the file path in the theme doesn't get any path suffix.
Fixes: https://github.com/awesomeWM/awesome/issues/387
Signed-off-by: Uli Schlachter <psychon@znc.in>
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
Emmanuel Lepage Vallée
cmertz
Julian Wollrath
Uli Schlachter
Uli Schlachter
Daniel Hahler
actionless