GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 723181
Use GtkPopover for GtkScaleButton
Last modified: 2014-02-03 21:17:37 UTC
Instead of a popup dialog with a the problems it causes.
Created attachment 267601 [details] [review] GtkScaleButton: Use a popover This works better than the contortions we're currently doing with an undecorated dialog, and grabs.
Created attachment 267602 [details] [review] GtkVolumeButton: Remove tooltips Showing tooltips on top of a transient popup does not work out well, and is not really necessary here. At the same time, remove the unnecessary repetitions of properties. In particular, setting the label of the buttons here defeats the scale buttons use of symbolic icons.
Created attachment 267603 [details] how it looks
Created attachment 267604 [details] how it looks
Created attachment 267605 [details] slight problem in totem: clutter gets in the way
Does GtkPopover clear its background to draw the shadow around the "popup"? I'd expect that to cause problems in totem 3.10, but it shouldn't (but does) in 3.12 where the popup is in the clutter-gtk scene as well.
I also get a NULL passed to g_object_ref() when popping out the popover in totem master:
+ Trace 233096
Created attachment 267616 [details] totem master popover
(In reply to comment #7) > I also get a NULL passed to g_object_ref() when popping out the popover in > totem master: > Should be fixed
Created attachment 267997 [details] forcing margins to zero Here is how it looks if I force the css margin, padding and border-radius to all be 0. If totem could do that in the short term, as a workaround. That would let us move ahead with this change
Attachment 267601 [details] pushed as c46b1c2 - GtkScaleButton: Use a popover Attachment 267602 [details] pushed as f058b40 - GtkVolumeButton: Remove tooltips
bug 723556 has an untested workaround patch for totem.
(In reply to comment #10) > Created an attachment (id=267997) [details] > forcing margins to zero > > Here is how it looks if I force the css margin, padding and border-radius to > all be 0. > > If totem could do that in the short term, as a workaround. That would let us > move ahead with this change I'm fine with that. I'll follow up on bug 723556 if needed, thanks!