GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 700306
util: Use explicit transition for fading actors
Last modified: 2016-03-31 13:22:07 UTC
See patch
Created attachment 244190 [details] [review] util: Use explicit transition for fading actors As strongly suggested by ebassi on IRC: <ebassi> [19:34:50] zeenix: and I would *strongly* suggest you use a proper ClutterTransition in this case, instead of relying on implicit animations, since you're controlling the start and end states, and you want to get notifications
Created attachment 244195 [details] [review] util: Use explicit transition for fading actors As strongly suggested by ebassi on IRC: <ebassi> [19:34:50] zeenix: and I would *strongly* suggest you use a proper ClutterTransition in this case, instead of relying on implicit animations, since you're controlling the start and end states, and you want to get notifications Besides being the right thing to do here, this also fixes the issue of boxes unable to change the actor visibility at the end of transition and avoid the warning on console about transition being null against clutter 1.16.
Review of attachment 244195 [details] [review]: Even if it's strongly recommended to do what is in that patch, isn't it a clutter bug that there are warnings if we choose not to folow the recommendation?
Review of attachment 244195 [details] [review]: It actually is a clutter bug that we get a NULL from actor.get_transition() even if the transition is skipped for certain cases by clutter. ebassi actually asked me to provide him a test case for the failing scenerio and I didn't get to do that. :( I'll update the commit log to reflect that this patch 'works around' a clutter issue rather than 'fixing' it.
Attachment 244195 [details] pushed as c142c3a - util: Use explicit transition for fading actors
(In reply to comment #4) > :( I'll update the commit log to reflect that this patch 'works > around' a clutter issue rather than 'fixing' it. I would have preferred a link to a bug report ;)