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...
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.
...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
A separate translation unit turns out to be unnecessary here,
since this is implementation level code included into one single
other translation unit (timeline-controller.cpp). In such a situation,
having the whole class definition at one code location improves
readability.
Moreover, there clearly is now another abstraction barrier,
insofar all of the clip widget's implementation technicalities
are buried within clip-widget.cpp
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...).
...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.
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.
the actual translation is still TODO;
we should delegate the calculation to the DisplayManager,
which is in focus within the TrackBody, where the coordinate
translation hook is now located.
...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
Yeah, C++17, finally!
...not totally sure if we want to go that route.
However, the noise reduction in terms of code size at call site looks compelling
...while the first solution looked as a nice API, abstracting away
the actual collections (and in fact helped me to sport and fix a problem
with type substitution), in the end I prefer a simpler solution.
Since we're now passing in a lambda for transform anyway, it is
completely pointless to create an abstracted iterator type, just
for the sole purpose of dereferencing an unique_ptr.
As it stands now, this is all tightly interwoven implementation code,
and the DisplayFrame is no longer intended to become an important
interface on it's own (this role has been taken by the ViewHook /
ViewHooked types).
Note: as an asside, this solution also highlights, that our
TreeExplorer framework has gradually turned into a generic
pipeline building framework, rendering the "monadic use" just
one usage scenario amongst others. And since C++20 will bring
us a language based framework for building iteration pipelines,
very similar to what we have here, we can expect to retrofit
this framework eventually. For this reason, I now start using
the simple name `lib::explore(IT)` as a synonym.
...there is no need for yet another indirection here,
since TrackPresenter is not much of an interface and
only included at into two other translation units.
Moreover, header-only code simplifies the use of
templated lambdas, which come in handy when dealing
with the various nested sub-collections.
- 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)
...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
