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 534135 - _NET_MOVERESIZE_WINDOW sometimes discards new window position
_NET_MOVERESIZE_WINDOW sometimes discards new window position
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 448183
Product: metacity
Classification: Other
Component: EWMH specification
2.20.x
Other Linux
: Normal major
: ---
Assigned To: Metacity maintainers list
Metacity maintainers list
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2008-05-21 04:37 UTC by Elliot Lee
Modified: 2008-05-22 19:40 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.19/2.20



Description Elliot Lee 2008-05-21 04:37:41 UTC
I'm running into a situation where _NET_MOVERESIZE_WINDOW winds up not moving the window at all. After tracing through metacity, it seems that as part of meta_window_move_resize_internal, constrain_size_increment is changing the x & y position back to the old (pre-move) position of the window.

When constrain_size_increment calls meta_rectangle_resize_with_gravity, the latter function winds up using the x & y information from 'old_rect' to populate rect.x and rect.y. The original values of the 'x' & 'y' members of 'rect' are totally ignored. However, when 'constrain_size_increment' calls 'meta_rectangle_resize_with_gravity', 'constrain_size_increment' is passing in the new position as the 'rect', and the original pre-move position of the window as 'old_rect'. So the end result is when all is said and done, the window winds up at its original location.

Suggestions for a workaround would be appreciated as well. _NET_MOVERESIZE_WINDOW is convenient because it will allow me to specify the window size/position including all the window decorations.
Comment 1 Elijah Newren 2008-05-22 03:26:16 UTC
I'm almost certain this was fixed in bug 448183...could you try with a newer version?
Comment 2 Elliot Lee 2008-05-22 19:40:16 UTC
The description on 448183 sounds exactly the same as what my investigations turned up. Thanks - closing as a dupe.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 448183 ***