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 140882 - Problems with GOK's DOCK/struts -> won't move windows & desktop icons out of the way
Problems with GOK's DOCK/struts -> won't move windows & desktop icons out of ...
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: gok
Classification: Deprecated
Component: general
unspecified
Other All
: High major
: ---
Assigned To: bill.haneman
bill.haneman
AP2
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2004-04-22 21:13 UTC by korn
Modified: 2004-12-22 21:47 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.7/2.8


Attachments
patch to fix this issue and bug 136160. (10.43 KB, patch)
2004-05-11 11:25 UTC, bill.haneman
none Details | Review

Description korn 2004-04-22 21:13:29 UTC
1. Configure your GNOME desktop to have a menu panel (the one with
"Applications" on it) as the sole panel, and on the bottom of the screen.
2. Open a Nautilus directory window (e.g. "Computer") and place it such that the
title bar is at the top edge of the screen
3. Launch gedit and place it such that the title bar of gedit is also at the top
edge of the screen.
4. Right click on the menu panel, choose Properties, and set the Orientation to
be top.
5. Notice that the gedit window & Nautilus directory window have moved down to
accomodate the menu panel now being at the top of the screen.  The desktop icons
have done the same.
6. Set the menu panel back to the bottom of the screen and launch GOK
7. Set GOK to be docked to the top of the screen.
8. Notice that the gedit window & Nautilus directory window do NOT move down to
accomodate GOK, nor have the Nautilus desktop icons.

The GNOME Panel is clearly doing some magic here, which should be incorporated
into GOK!
Comment 1 bill.haneman 2004-04-23 11:19:37 UTC
This feels like a regression to me, as I am pretty certain that GOK's DOCK mode
worked as well as the panel did when originally introduced.  I think something
has changed in Metacity's behavior which has reintroduced this problem.
Comment 2 bill.haneman 2004-04-23 15:20:14 UTC
This is likely to be difficult to fix.  However it's such important
functionality for GOK users that I am raising the priority to P3 (AP2).  It may
even be a P2 (AP1) since I suspect it's responsible for the high visibility of
bug #136159 which is currently blamed for almost all of the GOK test assertion
failures.
Comment 3 bill.haneman 2004-04-23 15:22:29 UTC
BTW, rather than metacity changes being responsible, it's quite possible that
other agents on the desktop using WM_STRUTS (e.g. gnome-panel) are the ones
whose behavioral changes have triggered the regression.  Or of course it could
be changes in gtk+.
Comment 4 bill.haneman 2004-05-11 11:15:29 UTC
I found the issue with struts, which only applies to DOCK_TOP struts
(DOCK_BOTTOM are and were working fine - at least, the same as gnome-panel's
struts).  The issue Peter raised regarding multiple docks on the same edge
appears not to be feasible to fix... note that gnome-panel manages this by
maintaining an in-process list of dock geometries, and all gnome panels are in
the same process space.  GOK can't do this (can't access the private process
data of gnome-panel) and thus cannot use the same approach to sharing a strut
(WM_STRUTS are per-edge).  I don't even see a way to do this via the extended
_wm_strut_partial APIs.  However, the basic strut functionality of GOK is fixed
with the attached patch.
Comment 5 bill.haneman 2004-05-11 11:25:49 UTC
Created attachment 27597 [details] [review]
patch to fix this issue and bug 136160.
Comment 6 bill.haneman 2004-05-11 14:02:01 UTC
I have a patch for this which is nearly done, just enhancing the 'core pointer
detection'.
Comment 7 korn 2004-05-11 14:28:05 UTC
Hey Bill, is there an RFE here for gnome-panel, to expose an API so apps like
GOK can have this functionality?
Comment 8 bill.haneman 2004-05-11 14:48:52 UTC
Probably not, as such use of 'struts' is irregular.
Comment 9 bill.haneman 2004-05-11 14:49:21 UTC
ignore comment #6, it is misplaced.