After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 113688 - debian: No checkbox in TreeView for boolean fields
debian: No checkbox in TreeView for boolean fields
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: gtkmm
Classification: Bindings
Component: TreeView
2.2
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: gtkmm-forge
gtkmm-forge
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2003-05-25 13:20 UTC by Zsolt Debre
Modified: 2004-12-22 21:47 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Attachments
Patch for the cellrenderer problem with treeviews (at least on win32) (2.35 KB, patch)
2003-06-13 06:37 UTC, Cedric Gustin
none Details | Review

Description Zsolt Debre 2003-05-25 13:20:37 UTC
Before the upgrade to the new version (2.2.2-1) there were toggle buttons
in  columns, representing boolean values. After I recompiled some sources,
these toggle buttons disapeared and I can se "TRUE" and "FALSE" captions in
the boolean columns only.
I think this is some header problem only, because it is working correctly
in programs, compiled with previous version of gtkmm.
Comment 1 Murray Cumming 2003-05-26 15:20:31 UTC
What distro and compiler are you using?
Comment 2 Murray Cumming 2003-05-26 15:21:25 UTC
And there is no such version as "2.2.2-1". Is that an rpm version
number maybe?
Comment 3 Zsolt Debre 2003-05-26 16:54:34 UTC
I'm using Debian SID (i386), g++ (GCC) 3.2.3 and the official .deb
package.
Yesterday I have compiled gtkmm from the gtkmm-2.2.3 tarball and found
the same problem. E.g. demos found in the demos subdir are not using
togglebutton, but examples/cellrenderercustom/cellrenderertoggle is
using it.
Comment 4 Murray Cumming 2003-05-27 08:10:32 UTC
I know it takes a while, but maybe it would be interesting to see if 
the problem still exists with gtkmm 2.2.0 from source.
Comment 5 Murray Cumming 2003-05-29 08:39:22 UTC
Please do try. This is clearly important and we need to figure out
where the problem is.
Comment 6 Zsolt Debre 2003-05-29 20:51:18 UTC
Interesting. There are no toggle buttons with newly compiled 2.2.0.
Maybe gtk+ headers are not correct. I'm upgrading the system now...
Comment 7 Zsolt Debre 2003-05-29 21:46:06 UTC
not working after the update :(
Next week I will have more time to find the aexact cause.
Comment 8 Murray Cumming 2003-05-30 13:24:24 UTC
> I'm upgrading the system now.

I'm not sure what that means. There is a known problem with TreeView
with the gcc 3.3.0 compiler, which we are told will be fixed with gcc
3.3.1.
Comment 9 Cedric Gustin 2003-06-13 06:37:33 UTC
Created attachment 17505 [details] [review]
Patch for the cellrenderer problem with treeviews (at least on win32)
Comment 10 Cedric Gustin 2003-06-13 06:41:28 UTC
Here is my patch for the treeview problem. As on debian, toggle 
buttons and pixbufs were not rendered properly in treeview columns on 
the win32 platform. Adding explicit declaration of the 
generate_cellrenderer full template specialization for types bool and 
Pixbuf solves the problem on win32. I'm confident this will also fix 
the bug on Debian. Please try...
Comment 11 Murray Cumming 2003-06-13 18:09:46 UTC
I've tested this with my regular RedHat 9. This does not cause any
problems so please go ahead and commit it. You hint at another bug in
the ChangeLog so please open another bug for that if necessary. The
stockbrowser part of the demo actually crashes for me, with or without
the patch, but I have a funky cvs gtk+.

Zsolt, it would be nice if you could test this patch, or a cvs
checkout (check the ChangeLog to make sure it has the patch) for debian.
Comment 12 Murray Cumming 2003-06-14 08:42:07 UTC
Applied to both branches.
Comment 13 Cedric Gustin 2003-06-14 16:06:43 UTC
Everything is now working fine on win32. I have uploaded updated DLLs 
(and a new installer) on my site. In the ChangeLog, the long-standing 
bug I was talking to was actually the problem described in this bug 
report : treeview boolean entries being converted to text, as could 
be seen in the gtk-demo. No need to open a new bug.
Comment 14 Murray Cumming 2003-06-18 13:13:54 UTC
Zsolt, please respond.
Comment 15 Zsolt Debre 2003-06-18 13:56:35 UTC
I applied this patch against 2.2.3 yesterday, but it is not working
well yet: I can not see checkboxes.
Additionally, I can see a lot of messages like this starting demo/Tree
Store:
(lt-demo:11869): GLib-GObject-WARNING **: gobject.c:1032: object class
`gtkmm__GtkCellRendererText' has no property named `activatable'
Comment 16 Cedric Gustin 2003-06-19 05:51:04 UTC
Could you try to compile gtkmm statically and post the error log if 
you get any multiply defined symbols ?
Comment 17 Murray Cumming 2003-06-24 15:22:28 UTC
I'm not 100% sure that patching .hg/.ccg files makes any difference to
a tarball. Are the changes really in the .h/.cc files.

However, I am fairly sure that the debian problem is caused by the
unrelated gcc bug.
Comment 18 Cedric Gustin 2003-06-24 18:52:11 UTC
Right. I think the modifications to the hg and ccg files are 
propagated to the corresponding h and cc files IF maintainer mode has 
been enabled in the configure script (--enable-maintainer-mode).
So, please Zsolt, if you're listening, try with this configure option 
or (if it's easier for you) patch treeviewrenderer.h as in the diff 
file I provided. I'm confident this will solve the treeview problem 
on debian.  
Comment 19 Zsolt Debre 2003-06-24 21:26:00 UTC
Yes, this --enable-maintainer-mode was new for me, as I'm new to gtkmm.
So the checkboxes are working correctly on Debian SID, using Cedric'
patch (g++-3.2.3). Thanks a lot!
Comment 20 Murray Cumming 2003-06-25 06:57:17 UTC
OK, well done guys. Cedric, please apply your patch.
Comment 21 Cedric Gustin 2003-06-25 07:18:13 UTC
Seems you already applied the patch to both branches on 2003-06-14.
I guess we can change the status of this bug to resolved.
Comment 22 Murray Cumming 2003-06-26 06:45:42 UTC
Oh, right, yes.