Now using the new GimpLabelColor as new default for RGB properties. It
makes more sense that the default is editable widgets. Also it has a
label, which is better default widget.
Also gimp_procedure_dialog_get_color_widget() now only returns
GimpLabelColor widgets.
I was initially considering a second widget, but it makes actually much
more sense to make the editability a property of the GimpLabelColor. It
also mean it can be switched on or off depending on situations.
I tried to have a not too overwhelming API, so we just ask for the label
and initial color at construction. We keep sane defaults for the rest
and let people tweak the result by getting the color area widgets
themselves (if they need to force-showing flat colors or change the drag
buttons in particular).
Another thing I wondered about was the initial size of the color area.
Without a size request or being in some container expanding its
children (which may also be ugly), it ends up too small. I can imagine
such widget being used especially when you want to display several
color rectangles next to each other with a label each. So I just set it
this way. Anyone is free to request a resize after constructing the
object.
Last but not least, the position of the label was especially of interest
here. For my idea of a list of colors, I could definitely imagine color
blocks aligned with vertically-oriented labels above or below. It might
be worth adding an API for this later on.
This would allow to enable, configure or disable drag ability of a
GimpColorArea ater its creation.
I tested that it works correctly in binding. For instance in Python:
> area.enable_drag(0)
> area.enable_drag(Gdk.ModifierType.BUTTON1_MASK |
> Gdk.ModifierType.BUTTON2_MASK)
… correctly disable then reanable the drag with buttons 1 and 2 (in
particular, I wanted to verify there was any reason why the property was
G_PARAM_CONSTRUCT_ONLY. Turns out there was no good reason).
I was interested by such API because having long list of parameters in
various APIs is very annoying. It is much nicer to have simple
constructors with decent defaults and proper API to modify a widget
afterwards in order to cater to special needs.
There were some complaint about the height of these scale.
The min-height was clearly too high. I also made the buttons a bit more
compact by removing a bit of padding.
Finally I add a CSS name to the class, in order to avoid using the
parent class name ("spinbutton"). This makes for clearer and more
customizable themes (ability to style the GimpSpinScale without styling
GtkSpinButton too).
The label was simply completely invisible because of broken progress
computation. Now it is visible at least when the progress fully cover
the label, but a part of the label is not drawn when the progression is
smaller than the label. I still have not figured out how to fix this,
though I am starting to wonder if we should not just drop this 2-color
fancy drawing of the label. Clearly the fact we can't get the exact
progression gadget dimension is biting us.
Another issue I noticed when playing with RTL layout is that when
editing the value, it gets printed on the right side (together with the
label) which gets messy. This is also something to figure out, hoping we
get an API for this on the GTK side.
Also I am setting "auto dir" to FALSE on the Pango layout, making sure
it follows the widget direction, whatsoever. In particular, even if the
contents is not RTL characters, we should keep a RTL layout to avoid
completely broken layout.
The logics to get the progress position is not proper because the text
area (as returned by gtk_entry_get_text_area()) is actually slightly
smaller than the progress area. Unfortunately it doesn't look like there
is an API to get the exact progress area. This commit improves a bit the
situation by starting the progress rectangle when excluding the
intersection of 2 rectangles in pango at the start of the text area (not
at 0).
It's still not perfect as the progress width will be anyway a bit too
small and we don't have the data to compute it properly, but it's better
than it used to be. I also set several variables to double instead of
int to be more accurate, though this part doesn't help much.
Finally I used the ink extents rather than the logical extents. Since we
are here to draw, this is the ink extents which is really needed.
Note: for the bug to be visible, you need to have a different text color
for the progress and non-progress part of the scale.
Also I'm unsure about the right-to-left logics which seems very broken.
There is really nothing specific to the core application, it is quite a
generic widget, so it would be nice for plug-ins to be able to use this
widget.
As I review and tweak various aspects of GIMP UI, I also write down
specifications for these subparts. Here is one for the locks behaviors.
We worked on these specifications with Aryeom and tried to make the most
useful and also somehow obvious logics for these locks, in particular
the cases when applied to layer groups which can have wider ranges of
meaning (on leaf items, it is much simpler). The various previous
commits are implemented based on these specifications.
XCF 17 includes the new visibility locks and the ability to add position
and alpha locks on layer groups.
I am going to push the various commits implementing these different
features together which is why we gather them as a single XCF version.
We want it to work whatever the level in the item tree. We only care
about whether the items are selected or not.
Also fixing the AppStream release tag for the description of this
feature.
Unlike other locks, visibility lock is less useful for locking a whole
hierarchy of item and their children. On the other hand, being able to
lock a group visibility while editing the children visibility is quite
useful.
It can be argued that layer groups can't be painted on, and that's
probably the original reason, but it's really just the same as "Lock
pixels". It is interesting to be able to lock alpha channels on a layer
group to simply lock all its contents alpha channels.
Since we are now allowed to move groups (which is the same thing as
multi-selecting all its children and moving them), it makes no sense
that this lock is disabled.
This works the same way as "Lock pixels" in that a locked grouped also
forbid moving children. And there was already some logics so that you
can't move a layer group if one of it's children is locked. So this lock
really works both ways and is a bit special.
Finally I cleaned up a bit the multi-layer selection logics and
messaging, as well as which lock to blink (similar to the previous
commit) for the "Lock position" case.
In particular, if painting on a layer whose parent's pixels are locked,
we were blinking an empty lock spot, which is confusing. Now
gimp_item_is_content_locked() will also return the proper item (when
relevant, i.e. when returning TRUE) which is locked. It may or may not
the same item as passed in (it may also be a parent item in particular).
Fixes:
> make[3]: *** No rule to make target '64/dialog-question.png', needed
> by 'gimp-core-pixbufs.gresource.xml'. Stop.
It looks like a bug in autotools on Windows because there is no reason
why it would fail. The missing PNG should be caught by the '64/%.png'
rule. Anyway after testing, it fixes the gimp-win(32|64)-native CI jobs.
As Massimo notes, the issue is not about the callback being broken in
bindings, but simply that bindings fail to handle random data without an
associated size. So let's just add the size. I confirmed testing API in
the Python binding that it now works fine.
See discussion in !572, #7840 and #7690. Note that this was reported on
macOS where the consequences were pretty dire, but it actually also
happens on other platforms, at least on Linux too (as confirmed in X11
with the GTK Inspector set to show graphics updates; on Wayland this
debug option doesn't work, but I assume it is the same).
I am not perfectly happy with this change either, because it is based on
part of the API which has various deprecated parts (hence doesn't exist
anymore on the main dev tree, i.e. it might have to be reviewed in GTK4;
of course, it's unsure, maybe the whole resize propagation to parent
containers is just better handled there and the problem won't exist
anymore).
In any case, it is cleaner than the proposition for this part of the
problem in !572 which is problematic (patching GtkLabel with a new API
which won't trigger resize even when actually needed, hence which likely
won't ever get accepted upstream because it's not right).
