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
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
...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
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.
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.
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
...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
...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
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)
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.
...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
- most notably the NOBUG logging flags have been renamed now
- but for the configuration, I'll stick to "GUI" for now,
since "Stage" would be bewildering for an occasional user
- in a similar vein, most documentation continues to refer to the GUI
