GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 700543
Broken RTL handling for some icons
Last modified: 2013-06-05 09:27:15 UTC
$ git grep go-previous-symbolic panels/region/cc-input-chooser.c:#define ARROW_PREV "go-previous-symbolic" panels/wacom/cc-wacom-nav-button.c: image = gtk_image_new_from_icon_name ("go-previous-symbolic", GTK_ICON_SIZE_MENU); shell/cc-window.c: "go-previous-symbolic");
Created attachment 244771 [details] [review] shell: Set previous button arrow according to locale's text direction -- (In reply to comment #0) > $ git grep go-previous-symbolic > panels/region/cc-input-chooser.c:#define ARROW_PREV "go-previous-symbolic" That one is fine already. > shell/cc-window.c: > "go-previous-symbolic"); Here's a patch for this.
Review of attachment 244771 [details] [review]: ::: shell/cc-window.c @@ +1409,3 @@ priv->previous_button = button = gd_header_simple_button_new (); gd_header_button_set_symbolic_icon_name (GD_HEADER_BUTTON (button), + rtl ? "go-next-symbolic" : "go-previous-symbolic"); The correct icon name is "go-next-rtl-symbolic", not "go-previous-symbolic".
(In reply to comment #1) > Created an attachment (id=244771) [details] [review] > shell: Set previous button arrow according to locale's text direction > > -- > > (In reply to comment #0) > > $ git grep go-previous-symbolic > > panels/region/cc-input-chooser.c:#define ARROW_PREV "go-previous-symbolic" > > That one is fine already. I'd rather it was fixed to use go-next-rtl rather than go-previous.
Created attachment 244904 [details] [review] Set previous buttons arrow icon according to locale's text direction -- > The correct icon name is "go-next-rtl-symbolic", not "go-previous-symbolic". Interesting, I didn't know about these -rtl- variants. The patch now fixes both the occurences that I can test here.
Created attachment 244921 [details] [review] Set button arrow icons according to locale's text direction -- Ugh, this stuff can be confusing. Ok, now this fixes all the occurrences. Tested the wacom panel with test-wacom.
Thanks for also doing it for Wacom, Rui.
Review of attachment 244921 [details] [review]: All three look good. Could you please commit them separately though?
Pushed as 3 separate commits.