for sake of developement of the timeline body drawing code,
several tweaks were added to make the impact of the styling stand
out clearly. This changeset removes all those tweaks and restors
the code to intended neutral behaviour
Moreover, the cursom drawing of the timeline now requires some
basic aids to be present in the stylesheet, otherwise the track structure
will not be visible. Thus add some minimalistic styling to the
"light-theme-complement"-stylesheet, mostly based on the usual
predefined theme colours and some box-shadow settings.
This is by no means an adequate graphical solution,
yet it should be enough to get on with coding....
check private notes and mindmap and fix some remaining minor inconsistencies,
notably the calculations in the overlay renderer in the `BodyCanvasWidget`.
The drawing code extracts style information from some "virtual"
widgets, which serve as logical placeholder for the actual nested
structure of tracks.
For sake of demonstration, I used rather obvious colours and
also all kinds of margin and padding; a screenshot was added
with annotations to indicate where some specific style settings
are utilised from the drawing code
Not sure if the initial window width is used properly for calibration
of ZoomWindow "pixel width" base setting.
Follow-up to the layout logic established with this commit:
09714cfe28
An extended round of rebuilding and reworking the global UI structures
can be concluded now. A flexible recursive structure of Tracks has
been implemented for the new Timeline-UI, allowing to contro all
relevant aspects of structure composition by **Diff Messages** sent
up from the Steam-Layer into the UI.
Moreover, the ability to control the custom drawing code through regular
**CSS style rules** has been demonstrated, allowing for seamless integration
of Lumiera UI elements with the existing desktop theme.
This completes the initial implementation round for the TrackHead.
- arrangement and layout for nested sub-Tracks is now settled
- a graphical representation of scope nesting was implemented
Postponed for later...
- still some minor discrepancies on synchronisation of vertical space
between TrackHead and custom drawing in the body (off-by-one?)
- Expanding / Collapsing of Tracks
- Implement actual Controls to influence the Scope, e.g. Volume, Mix-Mode
- Dynamically indicate selection and Muting on the structure display
While by default the Cairo Context is scaled to device units,
we must not assume that the given Context is unscaled; rather
it might have been deliberately scaled...
A notable example is the Gtk Inspector, which offers a "Magnifier" feature
- pick up all relevant values from CSS
- also control the width of the StaveBracket
- observe the given overall height
Moreover, complete documentation drawing in Inkscape
and add a page to the TiddlyWiki, describing the principles
underlying this design and construction.
.timeline__head : The complete header container on the left side
.timeline__navi : navigation control at top
.timeline__pbay : container holding the patchbay on the left side
.fork__head : each individual TrackHeadWidget (possibly nested)
.fork__control : container for the control components for each track scope
.fork__bracket : the StaveBracket drawing to indicate the nesting structure
The tricky part is to derive the anchor point for the upper
and the lower cap of the bracket, taking into account possible padding.
There seems to be a bug hidden somewhere in this logic, since the
line turns out too short at the lower end....?
According to the documentation, we should be able to get a Pango
font description from the CSS style context, and from there we should
be able to retrieve a font-size specification (and a DPI for the display)
Running this experimental code yields a font-size value of 9pt,
leading to a scale factor of about ~6, which seems plausible.
after weighting in the pro, and cons,
I decided to follow the standard path and pick up values
for each StaveBracket instance individually from Gtk::StyleContext,
assuming that the GTK framework will care for caching and performance
Identify the elements of the construction geometry in the "Sketch"
object in the FreeCAD document and paste the corresponding coordinate
values into the SVG drawing prepared for documentation.
The arc segment parameters seemingly are given in radians;
and while FreeCAD uses the common mathematical right-handed orientation,
the orientation in SVG is applied clockwise rather.
...since the construction is determined now (and was worked out in FreeCAD),
the SVG will serve to document the construction; thus the drawing
primitives are rearranged to use the unscaled reference coordinates
to be extracted from the FreeCAD document; all scaling and placement
in the SVG document will be applied through common groups.
My idea was to use the brackets from musical notation as inspiration;
if you know some principles of typography, it is rather straight-forward
to come up with a pleasing design of such a bracket, using a
cascade of golden ratio relationships.
BUT ... all of this is geometry, and translating that into a symbolic
or numerical calculation is excessively complicated. Thus I looked
for ways to use some geometry or CAD software to build such a construction.
The geometry software I tired was woefully inadequate for this task.
Using the Constraint system in FreeCAD, building the construction went
smooth and straight forward, but then I was unable to export that drawing
in a way indicating the construction clearly.
So in the end, I'll have to hand-pick the resulting numerical coordinates
from the FreeCAD XML document and integrate them directly into Cairo
drawing code...
...as it turned out, it suffices just to state desired behaviour explicitly
- make the StaveBracket expand=false
- declare the HeadControl expand=true
The reason lies in the fact that on leaf-tracks there are just two
adjacent cells in a single row, lacking any exterior source of layout guidance.
...just drawing a marker cross for now to indicate allocated size;
speaking of size -- GTK sometimes expands allocation horizontally,
while we'd prefer an absolutely fixed size for the purpose at hand.
Intention is to shift focus of development work down towards Player and Scheduler soon.
However, since the timeline display saw substantial improvement it seems prudent
to finish work on some open ends, notably
- the track head structure
- the drawing and styling code
While content rendering for Clip widgets can safely be postponed, regarding the TrackHeadWidget,
where custom drawing is planned to display a structural outline of the nested scopes, some
ground work should be completed to make those plannings explicit.
This both demonstrates the layout of the `TrackHeadWidget`
and puts `ElementBoxWidget` into intended use to indicate
the scope of a track and to provide a placement icon and
an expander/collapser button.
see #1018
see #1219
Layout calculation and balancing between body and track header
now works reasonably well, labels are placed properly and the
calculated layout remains stable when changing window size,
connected panes and scrollbars behave as expected now.
Quite a feat!
...to properly account for
- the "prelude" padding above the root track
- overview rulers located into a fixed separate canvas at top
- slope-down and slope-up borders around nested tracks.
After testing, results seem now to be accurate up to ± 1px
Finally (sigh)
As it turns out, we need to take the actual allocation of the cells
within the grid explicitly into account: combined cells will report
their extension for each of the underlying cells, thus leading to
excessively overestimated measurements.
So we now calculate the overall height based on the actual structure
- first row holds the label
- left column below used as expander
- right column holds individual content
Remaining problems:
- height of ruler canvas at top not taken into account (11px in this example)
- start of sub-track headers not synchronised with start of sub-tracks
in the body area
...seemingly the allocation of grid cells in the `TrackHeadWidget`
is not quite correct yet: even when there are nested sub-tracks,
we always need another row to hold the controls corresponding to
the track itself and the whole scope. And this row is also what
should be adjusted to match the vertical extension of the content
area.
As it turns out, the whole topic how to handle collapsed tracks
was not even considered yet; the calculation of the "track profile"
would need to be reworked to accommodate collapsed tracks, see: #1265
Sometimes, fractional seconds in the ZoomWindow metric can build up
to numerator and denominator values in the 64-bit integer domain.
Thus the division and truncation of the Window pixel with value
must be done in int64_t, while the result value is then
guaranteed to be a small integer < 100000
This caused the canvas to flicker and jump in size and the
resulting scrollbar change caused various cascading effects
on the further layout calculations...
Note: the actual root cause, why this re-entrance happens,
is due to another obvious numerics bug not yet solved.
Here, the canvas width was suddenly set to zero, causing
the scrollbar position to change and thus the ZoomWindow
to re-fire the structure change signal.
However, such invalidation of previously established baseline
values can never be totally excluded in advanced layout calculations,
and thus the evaluation mechanism must be prepared and re-triggered
to start over, until a stable layout is achieved.
- rearrange cell content and disable auto-expand to prevent
the content area from becoming oversized initially
- fix autocompletion error in signal binding,
causing segfault when moving the scrollbar
After quite some tinkering, instead of extending the DisplayManager interface,
I now prefer to treat this connection rather as an intricate implementation detail:
The TimelineLayout implementatino now provides two translation functions,
which are directly wired as slots from the Signals emitted by moving the
hand of the scrollbar; the idea is that these functions mutate the ZoomWindow,
which then triggers a DisplayEvaltuation, which in turn causes the
drawing code to pick up and translate back the new metric and position.
Results look promising, insofar the DisplayEvaluation is now triggered
repeatedly, and the actual window width in pixel is propagated;
however, the response of the layout code is seemingly random at times,
the allocated height grows monontonously and the code Segfaults when
moving the scrollbar...
this makes the arrangement more symmetric and natural
and also makes the overview ruler scroll alongside the content pane,
thereby creating the (intended) impression of one uniform layout space
As it turns out, this happens as side-effect from the workaround 2019-08-22
fc5eaf857c
Obviously, just set_size() on the canvas is not sufficient for
GTK actually to establish a size-request (seemingly the canvas counts
as /empty/ and only real widgets would make a difference).
However, since the ruler canvas is directly placed into the box,
and not adapted by a ScrolledWindow, explicitly set_size_request()
also causes the enclosing Box to "inherit" this minimal required size,
thereby also spreading out the BodyCanvasWidget beyond the size
actually available. GTK handles this situation by hard-clipping
on the right side, which causes the vertical scrollbar to disappear
and keeps the horizontal scrollbar disabled (since nominally it still
spans the whole size available, even while this size is then clipped
subsequently).
This changeset adds a lot of debug printing and demonstrates this
behaviour by setting only a minimal horizontal size_request, so that
the window is no longer expanded and clipped.
This does not really change the logic of the DisplayEvaluation mechanism,
but makes it much more flexible: instead of having two hard wired components,
the DisplayEvaluation visitor now holds a collection of LayoutElement pointers.
This way, the Layout manager itself (on behalf of the ZoomWindow) can
participate in the process, and on activation will now establish the
window width in pixel.
This works now insofar the drawing on the canvas is adapted coherently;
however something with the setup of the Scrollbar is still not quite right;
some time ago I recall the scrollbar worked, but now it is blocked
and the canvas just clips to the right side.
It is now tied to the start of ZoomWindow::overallSpan(),
thereby defining the (technical) pixel coordinates within the window
and for drawing on the canvas to be always positive. Whenever ZoomWindow
re-calibrates, it's change signal will trigger, causing the
TimelineLayout to perform a new DisplayEvaluationPass,
which in turn prompts all embedded widgets to readjust
their positions accordingly.
Note: changing behaviour of TimeSpan to possibly flip start and end,
and also to use Offset as Offset and then re-orient,
since this seems the least surprising behaviour.
These changes carry over into changed default and limiting
on ZoomWindow constructor and various mutators, and most
notably shifting the time span always into allowed domain.
...the implementation was way too naive; in some cases we could go
into an infinite loop. In the end, using Newton approximation was not
necessary (and thus there is no loop anymore), but it helped me get
at a much better solution with very small error margin on average case.
All these corner cases are obviously "academic" to some degree,
but it turns out there is no clear-cut point where you'd be able
just so set a limit and be sure that fractional integer arithmetic
works flawless in all cases.
Thus the choice is
- give up (fractional) integers and work with floats and have to
deal with error accumulation
- or do something as chosen here, namely add a boundary zone, where
fractional integer arithmetic can be kept under control, while admitting
small errors, and in turn get the absolutely precise integers in all
everyday standard cases
The value used previously was too conservative, and prevented ZommWindow
from zooming out to the complete Time domain. This was due to missing the
Time::SCALE denominator, which increaded the limit by factor 1e6
In fact the code is able to handle even this extremely reduced limit,
but doing so seems over the top, since now detox() kicks in on several
calculations, leading to rather coarse grained errors.
Thus I decided to use a compromise: lower the limit only by factor 1000;
with typical screen pixel widths, we can reach the full time domain,
while most scaling and zoom calculations can be performed precisely,
without detox() kicking in. Obviously this change requires adjusting
a lot of the test case expectations, since we can now zoom out maximally.
As it turns out, the calculation path initially choosen for the mutateScale(Rat)
was needlessly indirect, and also duplicated several of the safeguards,
meanwhile implemented way better in conformWindowToMetric(Rat)
Thus, instead of relatively re-scaling the window, now we just
limit the given zoomFactor and pass it to conformWindowToMetric()
There is a built-in limitation, which now is even
lowered to 100000 pixels horizontally.
With the techniques introduced in this changeset, it seems possible
to support more -- yet this would be a case of unnecessary genricity;
handling such large numbers will drive more computations into the
danger zone, and doing so incurs cost in terms of testing and debugging.
Placing that into context, contemporary displays are not even 4K on
average, and it does not look likely even for cinema display to go
way beyond 8k -- so yes, I want display hardware with 100000 pixels!!
The key takeaway of this changeset:
- can calculate px = trunc(zoomFactor * duration) step wise,
even when the direct calculation would lead to wrap-around
- can safely adjust and fix the zoomFactor using Newton approximation
...even zooming out to span the complete time domain (~19000 years).
But only under the condition that the display window is sufficiently
large in terms of pixels, so we can handle the computation without
glitches.
This should not be a relevant limitation in practice, since a window
size of some 100 pixels is enough to handle Duration::MAX. Needless to add
that it's hard to imagine a media timeline of such tremendous size...
building on these Library changes, plus the safe-add function
developed some days ago, it is now possible to mark a large displacement
as `time::Offset`, and apply this to yield any valid time position,
even extreme negative values
...building on these Library changes, plus the safe-add function
developed some days ago, it is now possible to mark a large displacement
as `time::Offset`, and apply this to yield any valid time position,
even extreme negative values
The APIs for time quantisation were drafted in an early stage of the project
and then never followed-up. Especially Grid::gridAlign has no
real-world usage yet, and is only massaged in some tests.
When looking at QuantiserBasics_test, I was puzzled and led astray,
since this function suggests to materialise a continuous time into
a quantised time -- which it doesn't (there is another dedicated
function Quantiser::materialise() to that end); so, without engaging
into the discussion if this function is of any use, I'll hereby
choose a name better reflecting what it does.
This is a deep refactoring to allow to represent the distance
between all valid time points as a time::Offset or time::Duration.
By design this is possible, since Time::MAX was defined as 1/30 of
the maximum value technically representable as int64_t. However,
introducing a different limiter for offsets and durations turns
out difficult, due to the inconsistencies in the exiting hierarchy
of temporal entities. Which in turn seems to stem from the unfortunate
decision to make time entities immutable, see #1261
Since the limiter is hard wired into the `time::TimeValue` constructor,
we are forced to create a "backdoor" of sorts, to pass up values
with different limiting from child classes. This would not be so
much of a problem if calculations weren't forced to go through `TimeVar`,
which does not distinguish between time points and time durations.
This solution rearranges all checks to be performed now by time::Offset,
while time::Duration will only take the absolute value at construction,
based on the fact that there is no valid construction path to yield
a duration which does not go through an offset first.
Later, when we're ready to sort out the implementation base of time values
(see #1258), this design issue should be revisited
- either we'll allow derived classes explicitly to invoke the limiter functions
- or we may be able to have an automatic conversion path from clearly
marked base implementation types, in which case we wouldn't use the
buildRaw_() and _raw() "backdoor" functions any more...
While the calculation was already basically under control, I just was not content
with the achieved numeric precision -- and the fact that the test case in fact
misses the bar, making it difficult do demonstrate that the calculation
is not derailed. I just had the gut feeling that it must be somehow possible
to achieve an absolute error level, not just a relative error level of 1e-6
Thus I reworked this part into a generic helper function, see #1262
The end result is:
* partial failure. we can only ''guarantee'' the relative error margin of 1e-6
* but in most cases not out to the most extreme numbers, the sophisticated
solution achieves much better results way below the absolute error level of 1µ-Tick
Thus with using rational numbers, we have now a solution that is absolutely precise
in the regular case, and gradually introduces errors at the domain bound
but with an guaranteed relative error margin of 1e-6 (== Time::SCALE)
...now able to achieve the expected error bound of 1e-6
...this seems to be the worst-case for ZoomWindow::setVisiblePos(factor)
for extremely large timeline; seemingly not possible to achieve the
goal set for this special test case
...in a similar vein as done for the product calculation.
In this case, we need to check the dimensions carefully and pick
the best calculation path, but as long as the overall result can
be represented, it should be possible to carry out the calculation
with fractional values, albeit introducing a small error.
As a follow-up, I have now also refactored the re-quantisation
functions, to be usable for general requantisation to another grid,
and I used these to replace the *naive* implementation of the
conversion FSecs -> µ-Grid, which caused a lot of integer-wrap-around
However, while the test now works basically without glitch or wrap,
the window position is still numerically of by 1e-6, which becomes
quite noticeably here due to the large overall span used for the test.
...using a requantisation trick to cancel out some factors in the
product of two rational numbers, allowing to calculate the product
without actual multiplication of (dangerously large) numbers.
with these additional safeguards, the anchorWindowAtPosition()
succeeds without Integer-wrap, but the result is not fully correct
(some further calculation error hidden somewhere??)
- detailed documentation of known problematic behaviour
when working with rational fractions
- demonstrate the heuristic predicate to detect dangerous numbers
- add extensive coverage and microbenchmarks for the integer-logarithm
implementation, based on an example on Stackoverflow. Surprising result:
The std::ilog(double) function is of comparable speed, at least for
GCC-8 on Debian-Buster.
Especially rational numbers with large denominator can be insidious,
since they might cause numeric overflow on seemingly harmless operations,
like adding a small number.
A solution might be to *requantise* the number into a different,
way smaller denominator. Obviously this is a lossy operation;
yet a small and controlled numeric error is always better than
an uncontrolled numeric wrap-around.
- protection against negative numbers seems adequate
- a possible concern are handling of very large time spans
- definitively have to guard against "poisonous" fractions
(e.g. n / INT_MAX)
- some test definitions were simply numerically wrong
- changed some aspects of the specified behaviour, to be more consistent
+ scrolling is more liberal and always allows to extend canvas
+ setting window to a given duration expands around anchor point
This function allows to move the visible range such that it contains
a given time position; the relative location of this point within
the visible range however is in turn determined by relating it to
the current overall canvas: if we are close to the beginning, the
position is also located rather to the left side, and if we're
approaching the canvas end, the position tends to the right side...
(and yes, I am aware that the variant taking a rational number
can be derailed by causing internal numeric overflow, when passing
a maliciously crafted rational number, like INT_MAX-1 / INT_MAX )
Rearrange the internal mutator functions to follow a common scheme,
so that most of the setters can be implemented by simple forwarding.
Move the change-listener triggering up into the actual setters.
This makes further test cases pass
- verify_setup
- verify_calibration
...implying that the pixel width is now retained
and basic behaviour matches expectations
Since conformWindowToMetric() is always called prior to performing
the complete invariant-reestablishment sequence, we can even integrate
the rule for relative scaling into this central function, which
simplifies the mutation implementation significantly. Should
relative positioning go south, the following sanity checks
will push the window back into bounds.
With these changes, the verify_simpleUsage() test passes!
Extensive tests with corner cases soon highlighted this problem
inherent to integer calculations with fractional numbers: it is
possible to derail the calculation by numeric overflow with values
not excessively large, but using large numbers as denominator.
This problem is typically triggered by addition and subtraction,
where you'd naively not expect any problems.
Thus changed the approach in the normalisation function, relying
on an explicitly coded test rather, and performing the adjustment
only after conversion back to simple integral micro-tick scale.
Getting all those requirements translated into code turns out to be a challenging task;
and the usual ascent to handle such a situation is to define **Invariants**
in conjunction with a normalisation scheme; each manipulation will then be
translated into invocation of one of the three fundamental mutators,
and these in turn always lead into the common normalisation sequence.
__Invariants__
- oriented and non-empty windows
- never alter given pxWidth
- zoom metric factor < max zoom
- visibleWindow ⊂ Canvas
Writing this specification unveiled a limitation of our internal
time base implementation, which is a 64bit microsecond grid.
As it turns out, any grid based time representation will always
be not precise enough to handle some relevant time specifications,
which are defined by a divisor. Most notably this affects the precise
display of frame duration in the GUI, and even more relevant,
the sample accurate editing of sound in the timeline.
Thus I decided to perform the internal computation in ZoomWindow
as rational numbers, based on boost::rational
Note: implementation stubbed only, test fails
This ZoomWindow_test highlights again the question about the intended usage
of the Lumiera time entities. In which way do we want to perform time calculations,
and under which circumstances is it adequate to perform arithmetic on
raw time values?
These questions made me think about rather far reaching concerns regarding
subsidiarity and implicit or explicit usage context. Basically I could
reconfirm the design choices taken some years ago -- while I must admit
that the project is headed towards a way larger scale and more loose
coupling of the parts, than I could imagine several years ago, at the
time when the design started...
As a side note: we can not avoid that some knowledge about the time implementation
leaks out from the support lib; time codes themselves are tightly coupled
to the usage scenario within the session and can not be used as means
for implementing UI concerns. And the more generic time frameworks,
like std::chrono (as much as it is desirable to have some integration here)
will not be of any help for most of our specific usage patterns.
The reason is, for film editing we do not have a global time scale,
rather the truth is when the film starts....
implement the first test case: nudge the zoom factor
⟹ scale factor doubled
⟹ visible window reduced to half size
⟹ visible window placed in the middle of the overall range
The solution is to provide a standard implementation in the form of a mix-in,
which directly houses a `ZoomWindow` instance. Moreover, the latter
is deemed a prominent use case for the time::Control, allowing other
components to attach and push changes of the zoom state or register
as listeners to react to state changes.
Actually, the `TimelineLayout`, which hosts all the actual visible
widgets forming the timeline-UI, now integrates this mix-in; and since
`TimelineLayout` is passed to `TimelineController` and used there as
reference-`CanvasHook` for the root track, this implementation of
the `DisplayMetric` interface will ''effectively be used by all
widgets'' attached to the timeline canvas.
Reading my work notes from two years ago, the concept can be validated.
Clarify the relation of the interfaces involved, and the role foreseen
for the upcoming `ZoomWindow` abstraction. This solution approach
will lead to multiple-stage indirect calls, which however are deemed
not to be overly concerning and will be investigated later, to avoid
premature optimisation (see #1254)
- `DisplayMetric` is a focused special purpose abstraction
- it belongs into the general abstraction of the `DisplayManager`
- it is rather linked by use to the other abstraction, the `CanvasHook`
- while the `RelativeCanvasHook` is not an interface, but an implementation mix-in
- and the actual `DisplayMetric` implementation can likewise be provided
as mix-in, since it will typically be implemented in terms of a `ZoomWindow`
Using this scheme, it will be possible to avoid some of the indirect cally
by making this mix-in visible higher up the call graph -- in case the
actual need for optimisation can be confirmed in practice.
* restructure the widgets used to implement ElementBox
* inject a Gtk::EventBox top-level base type to capture all Gdk-Events
* push the Gtk::Frame one level down (TODO: API for managing children)
With these changes
* dragging of Clips in the timeline works as expected
* size constraints are observed precisely
* all warnings and assertion failures from GTK disappeared
Thus we can conclude that the solution approach for size constrained widgets
was successful and this challenging problem is solved.
...as it turned out, the ClipWidget did still invoke the
Gtk::Frame::set_label() function, thereby deactivate our
elaborate custom IDLabel and showing the label text
unconditionally instead (also violating our size constraint)
...as it turns out, this code basically works already when the
widget is not(yet) realized:
- when a widget is hidden, it responds with size=0
- when a widget is shown, it reponds with proper or at least
preliminary size requirement, irrespective if already drawn
After injecting the diff, the widgets are created and then adjusted
in several steps; however, this code all executes from within a single
call to the UI-bus, and thus just piles up a sequence of realize()
and resize() messages, which are only executed later, in case the
Application-UI as a whole is visible on screen.
*Remaining Problems*:
- size-constraint code not working correct in all cases
- dragging works only on the buttons, not on the background
According to plan, this was more or less a drop-in replacement.
However, this first integration prototype highlights some design problems
* `ElementBoxWidget` is designed ''constructor-centric''
* but the population by diff messages will supply crucial information later
* and seemingly the size-constraint code is now invoked prior to widget realisation \\
⟹ Assertion Failure
rework each of the 32px, 48px and 16px variants
so that the shape appears clear and succinct when rendered,
taking the aliasing into account; fine-tune and balance shadows.
Since this is one of the most central concepts in Lumiera,
and this Icon is expected to become a hallmark of the Lumiera UI,
it seems adequate to spend about two days on this graphic work.
- Test the new layout code with debugger + dump messages
- Experiment: live changes to the name-ID content
(send msg. "manip" -> Text changed and Layout properly revalidated)
devise a more fine grained algorithm for adapting the display of IDLabel
to a situation with size constrained layout, e.g. for a time calibrated canvas.
We still do not implement the shortening of ID labels (see #1242),
since doing so would be surprisingly expensive. But at least we
do proceed in several steps now
- first attempt to reduce the name-ID (for now: hide it)
- if this doesn't suffice, also hide the menu
- and as a last resort, hide the icon and thus make the IDLabel empty
We are using buttons now, but the standard theme introduces a lot of padding arount button's contents.
Thus we need to consider ways to address the compound of widgets forming an ElementBox; moreover,
this is the classical situation where the BEM notation helps to clarify the intention....
The problem leading to custom styling here is the padding within buttons;
the default stylesheet seemingly adds a min-width and min-height setting,
and some padding within the Button; based on systematic CSS class names,
it is possible to remove these settings specifically for buttons
within the IDLabel in general (no need to treat only the case of an EventBoxLabel
-- IDLabel could become a custom widget on its own
As we continue with building the backbone of the UI,
and abundance of detail information regaring Layout and styling
will be encountered -- it is tantamount to have a place to
write those findings down....
as it turns out, this is a self-contained separate concern,
and thus this arrangement of two icons plus a caption shall
now manage itself as a custom widget.
And while touching this subject, I have also reconsidered
the purpose and arrangement of those icons and completed
the specification with some decisions...
- context menus will be left-click, selection right-click (Blender!)
- we will always show those two icons, just allocate different graphics
- when there is no expander, the 2nd icon will just serve to open the menu
- so the button is almost redundant in that case (except when dragging)
Further extended GTK code survey to clarify the role of the minimum_size,
it is indeed ignored by most standard containers, but it is actually
used by Gtk::Layout as starting point for the query sequence. Thus
it does not make sense to treat minimum and natural size differently;
both queries should be responded by returning our size constraint.
Unless we define additional borders and margins in the CSS, we can be sure
that GTK will base the size allocation on the exact values returned
from the get_required_* functions.
These functions will be invoked only from within the Event Loop
and after the ctor is finished, but before the first "draw".
They will be re-invoked on each "size change" event and on each
focus change (since a focus change may change the style and thus
the actual extension).
...the key point is to ask the embedded box holding the label
about it's preferred_size() -- this info is updated immediately,
even at begin, when the nested child widgets did not yet receive
an allocation.
Even while the preferred-size is something different than the
actual allocation, it will always be smaller and is thus sufficient
to decide if the size constraint can be met
The header "format-cout.hpp" offers a convenience function
to print pretty much any object or data in human readable form.
However, the formatter for pointers used within this framework
switched std::cout into hexadecimal display of numbers and failed
to clean-up this state.
Since the "stickyness" of IOS stream manipulators is generally a problem,
we now provide a RAII helper to capture the previous stream state and
automatically restore it when leaving the scope.
...does not work reliably yet...
- on first invocation, the child allocation is still zero
- later on, there seem to be lots of further invocations,
always when the application window gains focus
- these further invocations somehow change the visible extension
of the widget's background
identify the various dimensions, which require flexibility
to support the intended use cases; try to come up with a
design draft, allowing to settle on a preliminary version
soon, while not hampering further development later on.
Obviously this is a very deep and challenging topic,
and we're far from even remotely addressing it adequately;
we just need to get to the point to use this drafted version
as building block, since these usages will then push us further
into the right direction...
Investigate how the GTK implementation allocates size extension
to widgets and child widgets; identify possible extensions points
and work out a solution strategy to make GTK observe our specific
size constraints, which are derived from a time calibrated canvas.
The flexible custom styling yet needs to be definied.
Just adding a stock icon and a standard sized label field for now.
Widget can be constructed and successfully attached to a track.
Complete the investigation and turn the solution into a generic
mix-in-template, which can be used in flexible ways to support
this qualifier notation.
Moreover, recapitulate requirements for the ElementBoxWidget
Basically we want to create ElementBoxWidgets according to a
preconfigured layout scheme, yet we'll need to pass some additional
qualifiers and optional features, and these need to be checked
and used in accordance with the chosen flavour...
Investigating a possible solution based on additional ctor parameters,
which are given as "algebraic terms", and actually wrap a functor
to manipulate a builder configuration record
Seems to work solid now, after switching to the root coordinates provided by GDK.
With local relative coordinates, the subject fidgets while being dragged,
for obvious reasons, since we're shifting the relative point of reference.
Also clarified a strange behaviour of the test drawing code:
Cairo is "turtle graphics", so we need to set the starting point explicitly.
...well, the metric translation is not quite correct,
so it doesn't yet stick to the mouse. But all the challenging
problems within the framework for implementing such a generic
gesture seem to be solved now.
The ClipPresenter can access the CanvasHook wired into its actual ClipDelegate (widget).
And this in turn exposes the DisplayMetric, with the ability to transform
presentation coordinates (pixels) into a model representation (Time)
The actual translation is still hardwired placeholder code,
since it is planned to build an generic component "ZoomWindow"
to provide all the typical zomming and view window translations
found in every timeline editor
- move construct into the buffer
- directly invoke the payload constructor through PlantingHandle
- reconsider type signature and size constraint
- extend the unit test
- document a corner case of c++ "perfect forwarding",
which caused me some grief here
...this extension was spurred by the previeous refactoring.
Since 'emplace' now clearly denotes an operation to move-embed an existing object,
we could as well offer a separate 'create' API, which would take forwarding
arguments as usual and just delegates to the placement-new operation 'create'
already available in the InPlaceBuffer class.
Such would be a convenience shortcut and is not strictly necessary,
since move-construction is typically optimised away; yet it would also
allow to support strictly non-copyable payload types.
This refactoring also highlights a fuzziness in the existing design,
where we just passed the interface type, while being sloppy about the
DEFAULT type. In fact this *is* relevant, since any kind of construction
might fail, necessitating to default-construct a placeholder, since
InPlaceBuffer was intended for zero-overhead usage and thus has in itself
no means to know about the state of its buffer's contents. Thus the
only sane contract is that there is always a valid object emplaced
into the buffer, which in turn forces us to provide a loophole for
class hierarchies with an abstract base class -- in such a case the
user has to provide a fallback type explicitly.
...for the operation on a PlantingHandle, which allows
to implant a sub type instance into the opaque buffer.
* "create" should be used for a constructor invocation
* "emplace" takes an existing object and move-constructs
this allows to avoid multi-step indirection
when translating mouse dragging pixel coordinates
into a time offset for the dragged clip widget.
Moreover this also improves the design,
since the handling of canvas metric is pretty much
a self contained, separate concern
...previously this was modelled as part of the CanvasHook abstraction,
and in fact it will in any case be implemented by delegation to the
TimelineLayout or some kind of display manager.
We need this to tanslate mouse pixel movements into a time change
while dragging, effectively we have to translate a mouse position delta
into a TimeValue delta, and we want to avoid direct coupling to some
timeline display manager, to keep the gesture logic mostly generic.
some bugfixes,
but also a notable change: detect the completion of the gesture
directly when the button is released; this is necessary, because
seemingly we do not get motion_events when no button is pressed,
at least not in this test setup based on a Gtk::Button widget.
In 2017, I did a first design draft, followed by a design critique,
which partially obsoleted some ideas regarding command binding.
Mostly, the reason to abandon parts of that initial design was
due to the fact, that to many actual construction details of the
UI framework were not worked out at that time.
Thus I rather focussed on (re)-building a backbone for the timeline display,
in order to support that kind of flexibility aspired within the session model.
Now, when re-visiting the topic of an UI gesture (using simple dragging
of a clip in the timeline as an example for a first draft), I picked up
some of those planned structures, but tend to bind them together in
a slightly different way -- more akin to a state machine and less
in the way of an LR-parser.
This chagneset updates the relevant part within the TiddlyWiki
and the corresponding UML drawing to better reflect my actual thinking.
...because this is a prototype, but should fit in
with a future frameworks to handle complex interactions and gestures.
And no, we can not afford to rely on a UI toolkit for such a core concern
It is impossible that a framework like e.g. GTK will allow us to
support a custom made hardware controller and integrate it seamlessly
into getsture handling, thereby following a design philosophy that
is in accordance with our fundamental decisions.
...found out that GTK already implements an "implicit grab",
and thus the tricky situation that the mouse slides off the widget
can not happen at all; so in the end it's rather easy to build a trigger
for a dragging gesture.
The demo code is now activated only after the button is down
and just prints the position...
PS: did some research regarding the new Coroutines in C++
Setup the scaffolding necessary to get at the actual clip widget
and to establish a signal connection to the button_pressed signal.
The intention is to watch this in conjunction with mouse movements
for detection of the actual gesture.
At the moment, I am using button widgets as placeholder for the actual
clip widgets (not yet implemented...). And, as a tiny little success,
these buttons now invoke the gesture controller on right click
(left click is seemingly consumed by the button itself)
thus far my implementation concept seems to work as intended....
note: when populating the timeline with actual Clips,
the not-yet implemented linkSubject()-Function of the DragRelocateController
gets invoked (as it should), thereby killing Lumiera
...actually postpone to build a generic translation system and use hard wired relations for now;
it is acknowledged that we'll need some kind of translation system eventually,
once the GUI has to handle a lot of possibly configurable gestures.
..and thus there is now one dedicated source location,
where configuration of new clip widgets can be done reliably.
So all prerequisites are solved and we can start
building a prototypical drag-gesture implementation
The specific twist with the clip display lies in the fact
that there might or might not be a dedicated clip widget,
based on the current presentation style and zoom level.
Consequently we need hook up the widget for dragging,
only when, and whenever a new clip widget is actually created.
This boils down to the requirement to detect whenever a state change
creates a dedicated widget -- and this can only be sensibly implemented
when all display state transitions are handled by a single function.
Previously, we had two specialised functions for this purpose:
one to initially create the delegate and one to switch the
implementation type for an already existing delegate.
This refactoring attempts to merge all this logic into a single function,
which now unfortunately became quite complex and hard to understand.
My planning thus far seems solid enough to start fleshing out one concrete gesture handling,
which can serve as a blueprint for a generic scheme to be worked out later.
Moreover, the implementation is limited to mouse interaction for the time being,
while the goal remains to treat "gestures" in a way to span several
Interaction-Schemes eventually (mouse, key sequence, pen...).
...since it would be problematic, so store the prospective context data
for any conceivable gesture within each Widget possibly addressed by that gesture.
After some mulling over, today it finally occurred to me,
that I already solved a similar problem for the layout management,
and the very structure of ViewModel vs. Widget vs. Canvas settles
around that solution. Thus we could try to expand that structure --
which means that the gesture context is only created *late*, when the
gesture starts; and then the *subject* should be reponsible to collect
and establish the context for the gesture and feed it to the
gesture-controller, not the other way round
...even while keeping the focus to the actual problem at hand,
this solution must be built with the larger goal in mind, which
is the ability to support various editing gestures, transmitted
possibly through several control-systems (mouse, keybindings, pen...)
It is obvious that we'll need a dedicated controller for each kind of gesture;
what turns out as tricky is to maintain and bind a stateful context
and find the correct participants while a specific gesture is under way.
As it turned out, I drafted a rather elaborate vision in 2017,
leading to the conclusion to better just implement the very simple
"point and shot" command invocation and to postpone anything more
advanced to a later point, when the properties of the actual UI
are defined more clearly.
Thus, what I have to build now is a first step in the direction
of the more elaborate vision, but only that, namely a first draft,
which should fit into the more complete solution later.
Can we build a simple feature to allow dragging clips in the timeline display?
Well... not really, at least not "simple".
As it turns out, the GTK-framework only supports classic "drag-n-drop",
which translates into sending an action to a drag target to receive a "document".
And, even worse, dragging clips must be implemented as a UI gesture,
and as such overlaps with the other gestures for editing, trimming.
In 2017, I did an comprehensive analysis of this problem, and then
concluded to postpone it. Thus the task now would be to build a
*simplified preview*, while being aware of the danger of creating
oversimplified structures, and the danger to hamper a complete
solution for implementing UI gestures...
Now basically the header labels are aligned with the start of the corresponding body area.
However, there still seems to be some minor glitch hidden somewhere,
and the labels seem to be off by one pixel per track. Also the allocated
canvas size is to small after first evaluation, but somehow gets
corrected whenever the window is resized.
..now this more or less works and indeed crops the button widget
used here for a proof-of concept; however the label within that button
emits a lot of layout warnings on each event handling and drawing routine,
indicating that we violated its fundamental assumptions.
Not sure how to proceed from here; also not sure if this actually
becomes turns into a relevant issue in practice, since maybe in most cases
we'll rather increase the size, and all we really have to do is handle
the Clip's textual label properly. A clip smaller than some drop-down icon
should probably not be rendered explicitly, just as overview
GTK doesn't expose a first-class API for this,
since -- by design -- the extension of a widget is negotiated.
Thus I'm looking for some kind of workaround for our specific use-case,
where a clip widget must be rendered with a well defined horizontal size,
corresponding to its length.
Thus far, we're only able to increase the size of the Button widget
used as placeholder, but we can not forcibly shrink that button,
probably because the embedded Gtk::Lable requires additional extension.
- fix a regression introduced with the 3rd DisplayEvaluation pass
- use references to pass the timings more efficiently to the ClipDelegate
- DisplayEvalutation in fact has a real LifeCycle and is not disposable
- generate the population diff for this test in canonical form
with these changes, essentially the clip is moved to the
new position established in the preceding DisplayEvaluation.
...there is still some problem when this DisplayEvaluation itself
is triggered from within draw(), because then GTK still uses the old
sub-widget coordinates within this draw code, pretty much as if
they were cached somewhere. The next draw() call then uses the
proper new coordinates.
Partially as a leftover from the way more ambitious initial design,
we ended up with CanvasHook as an elaboration/specialisation of the
ViewHook abstraction. However, as it stands, this design is tilted,
since CanvasHook is not just an elaboration, but rather a variation
of the same basic idea.
And this is now more like a building pattern and less of a generic
framework, it seems adequate to separate these two variations completely,
even if this incurs a small amount of code duplication.
Actually this refactoring is necessary to resolve a bug, where
we ended up with the same Clip widgets attached two times to the
same Canvas control, one time through the ViewHook baseclass,
and a second time by the ctor of the "derived" CanvasHook
This can only be a preliminary solution, since we do not know
the actual usage pattern of the ClipDelegate object yet.
We only know there will typically be a huge amount of clips
to represent in the UI, and we need to be careful to avoid
unneccesary reallocations.
Thus for now we use a data record as base class, and we
move the data record into the new allocation when switching gears.
However, this could easily be converted into a data delegate,
where we'd only transfer ownership without reallocation,
in case this turns out to be more efficient.
After some in-depth analysis, it seems best to reattach the Clips and Marker
top-down through the control structure, rather than building some additional
magic callback into the CanvasHook. Thus the 3rd DisplayEvaluation pass
now not only has to rebalance track header and body, but also
reatach or move each attached widget within the body, using its
nominal coordinates. This should then pick up the changed
layout decoration size
...as it turns out, a first preliminary clip display should be working by now;
seemingly I was able to the tough theoretical problems last spring,
and was at the point of actually allocating display extension space
within the custom drawing area of the timeline.
Thus a simple placeholder widget based on a Gtk::Button should show up
at the right position, when sending a suitable diff message. The only
thing missing seems to be a first rough draft for the function
determineRequiredVerticalExtension()
...in an attempt to clarify why numerous cross links are not generated.
In the end, this attempt was not very successful, yet I could find some breadcrumbs...
- file comments generally seem to have a problem with auto link generation;
only fully qualified names seem to work reliably
- cross links to entities within a namespace do not work,
if the corresponding namespace is not documented in Doxygen
- documentation for entities within anonymous namespaces
must be explicitly enabled. Of course this makes only sense
for detailed documentation (but we do generate detailed
documentation here, including implementation notes)
- and the notorious problem: each file needs a valid @file comment
- the hierarchy of Markdown headings must be consistent within each
documentation section. This entails also to individual documented
entities. Basically, there must be a level-one heading (prefix "#"),
otherwise all headings will just disappear...
- sometimes the doc/devel/doxygen-warnings.txt gives further clues
...by relying on the newly implemented automatic standard binding
Looks like a significant improvement for me, now the actual bindings
only details aspects, which are related to the target, and no longer
such technicalitis like how to place a Child-Mutator into a buffer handle
After this long break during the "Covid Year 2020",
I pick this clean-up task as a means to fresh up my knowledge about the code base
The point to note is, when looking at all the existing diff bindings,
seemingly there is a lot of redundancy on some technical details,
which do not cary much meaining or relevance at the usage site:
- the most prominent case is binding to a collection of DiffMutables hold by smart-ptr
- all these objects expose an object identity (getID() function), which can be used as »Matcher«
- and all these objects can just delegate to the child's buildMutator() function
for entering a recursive mutation.
...and the result was very much worth the effort,
leading to more focused and cleaner code.
- all the concerns of moving widgets and translating coordinates
are now confined to the second abstraction layer (CanvasHook)
- while the ViewHook now deals exclusively with attachment, detachment
and reordering of attachment sequence
while the actual selection logic for the appearance style still remains
to be coded, this changeset basically settles the tricky initialisation sequence
As it turned out, it is rather easy to extend the existing listener
for structural changes to detect also value assignments. Actually
it seems we'd need both flavours, so be it.
...to indicate how the setting up the delegate might decide upon the appearance style
WIP: this is more than half baked
- for one it seems doubtful to pass a hidden hint regarding appearance through that optional argument
- and then, most importantly, we should be passing a time::TimeSpan
- it seems such a feature is not possible to implement in a totally
sane and safe way, since intermixed other UI messages might cause
removal of some widgets for which we scheduled a change. And there
is no simple and performant mechanism available to track the lifecycle
of all the widgets involved
- as it stands, it is actually not necessary to schedule the resizing
for later, since the UI runs single-threaded, and thus GTK has no
opportunity to act on them while our evaluation pass is running
The reason was: each further ViewRefHook added again the full offset.
Need to change the hierarchy and allow for this chained hooking already
starting from the base interface ViewHook onward (with trivial default impl)
...not fully conclusive yet.
However, the split into two canvas controls plays an important role here;
at some point we need to translate into the coordinates shifted by the height
of the first, pinned canvas (track profile "prefix").
This is an attempt to hide that away as a technical detail,
buried within the calculation of the track body height allocation.
the marked pars are diagnostics code anyway,
however, the first attempt used direct manipulation of the child offsets from "outside".
Now, after switching to the ViewHook-mechanism, such direct manipulation
of view innards is no longer neccessary, as can be verified by removing that test code now.
this draft commit reshifts the (meanwhile broken) test code from:
03c358fe86
Now the marker Buttons are injected again, but without any detailed
positioning code at call site. This demonstrates the viability of the
Structure-Change / ViewHook refactoring.
To make this change viable, it was necessary to remove the ViewHooked<>
marker template from the rehook() callback. As it turns out, this was
added rather for logical reasons, and is in fact not necessary in
any of the existing ViewHook implementations (and I don't expect any
other implementations to come)
BUT the actual positioning coordinates are still wrong (which seems
to re related to other conceptual problems in coordinate offset handling)
This changeset documents the current known state of UI startup into the TiddlyWiki.
It summarises all information and notes from various places in my mindmap.
Fazit:
* largely, the startup sequence is sane
* there are some open gaps and possible races -> see #1192
* these are rather hard to fix; maybe it's preferrable to rewrite the subsystem runner #1177
...which erroneously assumed the list of timelines to be empty.
When sending a further population diff, this assumption is broken,
since the first diff resulted in adding a timeline element.
This misatke was detected by the new consistency check added with
9f3fe8a88
the reason for the failure, as it turned out,
is that 'noexcept' is part of the function signature since C++17
And, since typically a STL container has const and non-const variants
of the begin() and end() function, the match to a member function pointer
became ambuguous, when probing with a signature without 'noexcept'
However, we deliberately want to support "any STL container like" types,
and this IMHO should include types with a possibly throwing iterator.
The rationale is, sometimes we want to expose some element *generator*
behind a container-like interface.
At this point I did an investigation if we can emulate something
in the way of a Concept -- i.e. rather than checking for the presence
of some functions on the interface, better try to cover the necessary
behaviour, like in a type class.
Unfortunately, while doable, this turns out to become quite technical;
and this highlights why the C++20 concepts are such an important addition
to the language.
So for the time being, we'll amend the existing solution
and look ahead to C++20
as it turns out, "almost" the whole codebase compiles in C++17 mode.
with the exception of two metaprogramming-related problems:
- our "duck detector" for STL containers does not trigger anymore
- the Metafunction to dissect Function sigantures (meta::_Fun) flounders
When drafting the time handling framework some years ago,
I foresaw the possible danger of mixing up numbers relating
to fractional seconds, with other plain numbers intended as
frame counts or as micro ticks. Thus I deliberately picked
an incompatible integer type for FSecs = boost::rational<long>
However, using long is problematic in itself, since its actual
bit length is not fixed, and especially on 32bit platforms long
is quite surprisingly defined to be the same as int.
However, meanwhile, using the new C++ features, I have blocked
pretty much any possible implicit conversion path, requiring
explicit conversions in the relevant ctor invocations. So,
after weighting in the alternatives, FSecs is now defined
as boost::rational<int64_t>.
GCC8 now spots and warns about such mismatches.
And we should take such warnings seriously;
code produced by the newer GCC versions tends to segfault,
especially under -O2 and above, when a return statement is
actually missing, even if the return value is actually not
used at call site.
Here, a functor to unlock the active "guard" is passed into
a macro construct, which basically allows to abstract the
various kinds of "guards", be it mutex, condition variable
or the like.
Seemingly, the intention was to deal with a failure when
unlocking -- however all the real implementations prefer
to kill the whole application without much ado.
...to solve the problem with interwoven nested ctor invocation.
This interface also promises to help with nested invcations,
without being overly generic.
Our diff language requires a diff to handle the complete contents of the target.
Through this clean-up hook this is now in fact enforced.
The actual reason for adding this however was that I need to ensure
listeners are triggered
As it turned out, the reason was a missing move-ctor.
The base of the whole DSL-Stack, TreeMutator, is defined MoveOnly,
and this is also the intended use (build an anonymous instance
through the DSL and move it into the work buffer prior to diff application)
However, C++ does *cease to define* a move ctor implicitly,
whenever /one of the "big five" is defined explicitly/.
So Detector4StructuralChanges was the culprit, it defined a dtor,
but failed to define the move ctor explicitly.
So.... well, this did cost me several hours to track down,
yet I still rather do not want to write all those ctors explicitly all the time,
and so I am still in favour of implicitly generated ctors, even if they hurt sometimes.
with the new decorator layer, we suddenly trigger a chain of template instantiation errors.
At first sight, they are almost undecipherable, yet after some experimentation, it becomes clear
that they relate down to the base class (TreeMutator), which is defined MoveOnly
This seems to indicate that, at some point in the call chain, we are
digressing from the move-construction scheme and switch over to copy construction,
which in the end failst (and shall fail).
Inconclusive, to be investigated further
basically the solution was a bit too naive and assumed everything is similar to a vector.
It is not, and this leads to some insidious problems with std::map, which hereby
are resolved by introducing ContainerTraits
All of the existing "simple" tests for the »Diff Framework« are way to much low-level;
they might indeed be elementary, but not introductory and simple to grasp.
We need a very simplistic example to show off the idea of mutation by diff,
and this simple example can then be used to build further usage test cases.
My actual goal for #1206 to have such a very basic usage demonstration and then
to attach a listener to this setup, and verify it is actually triggered.
PS: the name "GenNodeBasic_test" is somewhat pathetic, this test covers a lot
of ground and is anything but "basic". GenNode in fact became a widely used
fundamental data structure within Lumiera, and -- admittedly -- the existing
implementation might be somewhat simplistic, while the whole concept as such
is demanding, and we should accept that as the state of affairs
now the lifecycle of widget and hook are tightly interwoven.
Indeed the test uncovered a situation where a call into the
already destroyed Canvas might halt the application.
...basically it occurred to me that in practice we will never have to deal
with isolated ViewHooks, rather with widgets-combinded-with-a-hook.
So the idea is to combine both into a template ViewHooked<W>
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.
...to form a single framework for view attachment.
Obviously, we have two quite distinct cases to cover
- attaching a widget onto a canvas
- hooking a widget as subtree into a grid/tree control
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
- CSS3 effects like box-shadow are applied with the StyleContext::render_background() function
* first, an outset box-shadow is rendered _outside_ the box given as parameter to `render_background()`
* then the box is filled with the background colour
* and last, an inset box-shadow is rendered _inside_ the area of a would-be border,
without rendering the border itself.
* consequently we can not shade the border itself and we can not shade the content
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
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
...to find out about GTK's implementation of some aspects of CSS
through Gtk::StyleContext and friends
Basically this is a clone of the existing gtk-canvas-experiment application
...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
For context: The »Advice System« was coined a long time ago, in 2010,
based on the vague impression that it might be useful for that kind of application
we are about to build here. And, as can be expected, none of the usage situations
envisioned at that time was brought to bear. Non the less, the facility came in
handy at times, precisely because it is cross-cutting and allows to pass
information without imposing any systematic relationship between the
communication partners.
And now we've got again such a situation.
The global style manager in the UI has to build a virtual CSS path,
which is needed by drawing code somewhere deep down, and we absolutely
do not want to pass a reference to the style manager over 20 recursive calls.
The alternatives would be
(1) to turn the style manager into a public service
(2) to have a static access function somewhere
(3) to use a global variable.
For rationale, (1) would be overblown, because we do not actually request
a service to do work for us, rather we need some global piece of information.
(2) would be equivalent to (1), just more confusing. And (3) is basically
what the Advice system does, with the added benefit of a clear-cut service
access point and a well defined lifecycle.
This changeset adds the ability to check if actual Advice has been published,
which allows us to invoke the (possibly expensive) GTK path building and
style context building code only once.
- 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
The existing implementation created a Buffer-Type based on various traits,
including the constructor and destructor functions for the buffer content.
However, this necessitates calculating the hash_value of a std::function,
which (see #294) is generally not possible to implement.
So with this changeset we now store an additional identity hash value
right into the TypeHandler, based on the target type placed into the buffer
This was prompted by a test failing under Boost-1.65 (--> see #294)
When reviewed now, the whole idea of testing Steam-Layer Commands for
equivalence feels a bit sketchy.
Just the comparison for the command ''identity'' alone seems sufficient,
i.e. the test if a command-ID is associated with the same backend-handle
and thus the same functor binding.
...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
