..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)
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
