basically this attempts to work around an "impedance mismatch" caused by relying on Lumiera's Diff framework.
Applying a diff might alter the structural order of components, without those componets
being aware of the change. If especially those components are attached into some
UI layout, or otherwise delegate to display widgets, we need a dedicated mechanism
to reestablish those display elements in proper order after applying the change.
The typical examples is a sequence of sub-Tracks, which might have been reordert due
to applying rules down in the Steam Layer. The resulting diff will propagate the
new order of sub-Tracks up into the UI, yet now all of the elaborate layout and
space allocation done in the presentation code needs to be adjusted or even
recomputed to accomodate the change.
By applying a Diff, the children of some timeline element (track) may be re-ordered.
This imposes specific problems, since these elements hold onto slave-Widgets,
which are already attached into some elaborated and nested widget structure.
To keep complexity under control, we can not allow the TrackPresenter to have
any knowledge regarding the implementation structure of these target widgets.
Thus I am pondering the idea to represent that relation as an abstracted ViewHook link
...which serves to solve the problem with Canvas access.
Basically we do not want each and every Clip widget to be aware of the concrete canvas implementation widget;
and in addition, automated removal of widgets from the Canvas seems desirable
This is dummy/test/diagnostics code and should be removed when the track display code is complete!
It can be activated by sending a "mark"-Message via the UI-Bus, towards the
Timeline element to be tested (Tip: use the same ID as used when injecting
the Timeline via the TestControl Dialog box). When receiving this message
(asynchronously), the TimelineControler asks each nested TrackPresnter
to inject a Button with the corresponding track name onto the BodyCanvasWidget.
This allows us to verify the coordinate calculation and size allocation --
and indeed, the numbers are not yet correct (TODO)
admittedly this is a bit sketchy, but I don't have a better framework to hinge upon right now.
Thus we store the vertical start coordinates and the offset of the content area
as a side effect, while calculating the TrackProfile
...which has the nice additional effect of exposing box-shadow on the outside of the content area too.
Thus the content area now behaves equivalent to the rulers, and adjacent
content space of simple tracks without rulers and nesting can be slightly
offset from each other through a margin in CSS
In the end, I used the profile building pass to also calculate and sum up the vertical offsets.
Seems to be the only sane approach to get really precise values, since adjacent
upwards slopes can be combined at various places (and I do not want to use the
actual drawing code for this calculation)
need to investigate and probably need to store per track offset values
already while building the track profile. The primary reason for the
observed discrepancy seems to be the rather flexible combination of
slope borders.
Especially note the tricks we need to play in order to allow for (limited) usage of CSS3 box-shadows.
The reason is, all these CSS3 effects are rendered in one shot and combinend on the StyleContext::render_background() call
Thus we need to ensure that the background is properly aligned with the frames
seemingly, the Box with PACK_SHRINK allocates a zero height to the rulerCanvas initally,
which is correct at that point, since the widgets are not yet realised.
However, when we later set_size() on the rulerCanvas, the enclosing Box should reflow.
It does indeed if the child widget is a button or something similar, however,
somehow this reflowing does not work when we set_size on the canvas.
A workaround is to place a new set_size_request().
TODO: do this more precisely, and only on the rulerCanvas. To the contrary,
the mainCanvas is placed into a scolling-pane and thus does not need a size-Request.
Moreover, the latter automatically communicates with the hadjustment() / vadjustment() of
the enclosing scrollbars.
as can be verified with the debugger, it sets the correct sizes now.
And it is called only once (unless the content size actually changes).
TODO: however, the visible display of the GTK widgets is not adjusted
Indeed I had missed to connect the new "free standing" StyleContext to
some Gdk::Screen, typically the default screen (connected to the current
top level window). But seemingly this was not really necessary, since,
somehow magically, the style context must have connected itself to some
screen, otherwise it wouldn't be able to access the CSS cascade.
Anyhow, fixing this omission does not resolve our problem.
Nor does any combination of re-connecting, invalidating etc.
I poked around in the GTK (C) code a lot, but could not spot any obvious
missing initialisation step. To much magic around here. Without massive
debugging into GTK internals, I don't see any way to further this
investigation. And, moreover there is a viable workaround
(namely to set and remove the classes explicitly, which works as intended)
I posted a question on Stackoverflow and for now
I'll file this topic as "inconclusive"
https://stackoverflow.com/q/57342478
Note however, we will not plaster our UI code and CSS with mangled-out selectors
on each and every single element. This is what cascading was meant to be used for.
DONE
- can now control the border size through a set of modifier classes
OPEN
- but context_save()/restore() does not work; seem to loose all styling
- not clear how to deal with CSS3 effects like box-shadow
...somehow does not yet work as intended...
- unable to control the border-width from code
- Gtk::StyleContext::add_class(name) does not seem to have any effect
We can add our custom classes to custom widgets, and we can set the
widget name, which can be used as #id selector from CSS
Unfortunately we can not set the main CSS node name for CustomWidgets defined through GTKmm (C++)
The latter is only possible when deriving the custom widget in plain-C, which is quite tedious.
On a second thought, this limitation is not so severe as it might seem, because
most of the time you actually do *not* want to change the CSS node name,
because you want to match against existing rules in the theme (e.g. box, or paned)
The actual case here would have been an exception to this rule, since here
it would be nice to anchor the whole custom timeline drawing in an "body.timeline" element
NOTE: Current state for the selector path is now:
window.background box.vertical box[2/3].horizontal widget[2/2] widget paned.vertical widget box.vertical notebook[1/1].frame paned.horizontal.timeline-page box.vertical.timeline.timeline-body fork.timeline
...and perform the initialisation once, when attaching the first timeline to the UI
Now our code produces the following Gtk::WidgetPath (note the last node, which our code added)
window:backdrop:dir-ltr.background box:backdrop:dir-ltr.vertical box:backdrop:dir-ltr[2/3].horizontal widget:backdrop:dir-ltr[2/2] widget:backdrop:dir-ltr paned:backdrop:dir-ltr.vertical widget:backdrop:dir-ltr box:backdrop:dir-ltr.vertical notebook:backdrop:dir-ltr[1/1].frame paned:backdrop:dir-ltr.horizontal box:backdrop:dir-ltr.vertical fork.timeline
- at some (yet to be defined) location, a virtual WidgetPath is constructed
and used to build a Gtk::StyleContext in accordance to the curren CSS
- within the drawing routine, we use Lumiera's Advice-System to access this info
...when rendering this part, which shall be always visible.
And the rest of the profile needs to be rendered into a second canvas,
which is placed within a pane with scrollbar.
Implemented as a statefull iterator filter
TODO:
- actual draw operations not yet implemented
- find a way how to select the prelude / body part of the track profile
This is a consequence of subsuming the timeline ruler under the concept of an overview track
...which leads to a specific twist here; while in the simple version
we still could hope to get away with a simple uniform uint argument,
the situation has changed altogether now. The canvas has turned into
some generic component, since it is instantiated two times, onece for
the time ruler and once for the actual body content. Thus all of the
specifics of the drawing code need to be pushed into a new, dedicated
renderer component. And this more or less forces us to pass all the
actual presentation variations through the invocation arguments of
the visitor.
So we're now off again for a digression, we need a more generalised visitor
After thinking the whole concept over several times, it occurred to me that
a separate implementation of a time ruler would be quite redundant with the
envisioned feature of per-track overview rulers. Following this line of thought,
the time ruler would just be some specifically configured overview ruler.
This has the somewhat unfortunate consequence, that it becomes the responsibility
of the body canvas to render the overview ruler, thereby somehow delegating
to a common renderer implementation. Which makes the whole setup of the body canvas
way more complex, because now we get *two* canvas like painting areas, one
always visible at top, and the second one, the content area, fully scrollable
within the lower part.
