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 111835 - Change spacing in HST, and BME
Change spacing in HST, and BME
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: epiphany
Classification: Core
Component: History
unspecified
Other Linux
: High normal
: 1.0
Assigned To: Marco Pesenti Gritti
Marco Pesenti Gritti
Depends on:
Blocks: 116631
 
 
Reported: 2003-04-29 13:14 UTC by Dave Bordoley [Not Reading Bug Mail]
Modified: 2004-12-22 21:47 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.3/2.4


Attachments
/me wishes moz text entries weren't borked. oh patch :) (2.44 KB, patch)
2003-04-29 13:15 UTC, Dave Bordoley [Not Reading Bug Mail]
none Details | Review
patch part2 (5.44 KB, patch)
2003-04-30 06:14 UTC, Dave Bordoley [Not Reading Bug Mail]
none Details | Review

Description Dave Bordoley [Not Reading Bug Mail] 2003-04-29 13:14:49 UTC
we should remove the 6px border so that when you maximize the window you can scroll the bms and targe topics by throwing your mouse against the screen edge. This may not seem like a common use case for us with large monitors, but for those on 640x480 or 800x600 this is useful for sure and just good design. Patch on the way, oh and it adds a 6px border to the search box so that it does lay up against the hpane.
Comment 1 Dave Bordoley [Not Reading Bug Mail] 2003-04-29 13:15:34 UTC
Created attachment 16101 [details] [review]
/me wishes moz text entries weren't borked. oh patch :)
Comment 2 Marco Pesenti Gritti 2003-04-29 16:57:36 UTC
Please commit. Thanks !
Comment 3 Dave Bordoley [Not Reading Bug Mail] 2003-04-30 06:14:37 UTC
Created attachment 16126 [details] [review]
patch part2
Comment 4 Dave Bordoley [Not Reading Bug Mail] 2003-04-30 06:17:07 UTC
the attached patch is necessary to make the claims in patch 1 true.

there were two problems.
1. ephy-state was saving and setting the position of maximized windows (bad dave!)

2. setting the shadow to GTK_SHADOW_IN on the scrolled windows, adds one pixel or so, to both edges of the screen breaking lots of stuff, so i just removed that since it is not necessary anyway.

ok to commit?
Comment 5 Marco Pesenti Gritti 2003-04-30 10:09:44 UTC
+		if ((x >= screen_width) || (y >= screen_height))
+		{
+			x = y = WINDOW_POSITION_UNSET;
+		}
+
+		/* If the window has a saved position set it, 
otherwise let the WM do it */
+		if ((x != WINDOW_POSITION_UNSET) && (y != 
WINDOW_POSITION_UNSET))
+		{
+			gtk_window_move (GTK_WINDOW (window), x, y);
+		}

Is this necessary ? You already checked for UNSET. I think you can 
just check the out of screen thing now. Like if ((x >= screen_width) 
|| (y >= screen_height)) window_move;
Comment 6 Marco Pesenti Gritti 2003-04-30 10:11:09 UTC
About the shadow thing, I dont think we should change the style it's 
used everywhere else in gnome and epiphany.
Comment 7 Dave Bordoley [Not Reading Bug Mail] 2003-04-30 13:26:23 UTC
re: comment one, that code is in the original code you approved way back
 when :) It is needed to check the initial condition. Ie. the first time
 a window is added to the state_node, it has an initial position of
 (WINDOW_POSITION_UNSET, WINDOW_POSITION_UNSET), since we assign that
 value when the node is created). However if we try to set the position
 to that point, metacity at least will move it to the closes on screen
 point which is probably (belowpanel, 0). So intead of setting the
 position we just let the wm choose the optimal point.

re: comment two, nautilus for instance doesn't set the shadow in for
 this exact reason. There is no good way for gtk to fix this, it can't
 change the shadowing just because is maximized. Adding the shadow adds
 an extra one pixel border around the trees which makes slamming
 against the edges impossible.
Comment 8 Marco Pesenti Gritti 2003-04-30 13:31:32 UTC
re 1:
Ooops I missed some - in the patch, I thought there was an 
unnecessary double check.

re 2:
Uhhhm I'd need to see it. Well check it in. I'm just worried it will 
look inconsistent with other treeviews :/
Comment 9 Dave Bordoley [Not Reading Bug Mail] 2003-04-30 17:02:15 UTC
i actually think it looks better now.
Comment 10 Jorn Baayen 2003-05-02 12:47:42 UTC
ehm.. I think it looks butt-ugly now, and inconsistent with the rest
of GNOME with the shadows gone. 

also it would be nice to remove the padding left and right of search
label + entry, would make things line up a bit more nicely.
Comment 11 Dave Bordoley [Not Reading Bug Mail] 2003-05-02 14:08:31 UTC
the padding on the search label is nice so that it doesn't rub up against the grab bar. Using shadow in sucks rocks here, you end up with a double bevel at the top of the topics view, and can't hit the edge of the screen with the mouse to select stuff when maximized. Nautilus using shadow_none here for the same reason for the list view and tree view and no one seems to complain.

We could fake shadows on the grab bar and over title tree, but comparing the too when i was testing, the extra bevels just looked like visual noise to me anyway.

Comment 12 Marco Pesenti Gritti 2003-05-02 21:06:55 UTC
Ouch I agree with jorn that without border is incredibly ugly :/ Ihmo
we should revert that.
About the padding I prefer it this way though, it will never line up
correctly and the spacing is nice.
Comment 13 Marco Pesenti Gritti 2003-05-03 11:55:07 UTC
Reverting shadows for release, then we can decide. I volounter to
re-revert ;)
Comment 14 Marco Pesenti Gritti 2003-07-24 00:16:53 UTC
guess current status is ok