For very small page sizes of < 1.0, the effect of pow() is the
opposite of what's intended and the scroll steps become unusably
large, make sure we never get a scroll_unit larger than page_size /
2.0, which used to be the default before the pow() magic was
introduced.
The last round of patches to get the desired direction of value move in
response to scrolls/keypresses on scales had the inadvertent side effect
of giving the opposite direction on scrollbars. Seeing as gtkrange.c is
already a collection of hacks, add another so that fix only holds if the
instance is a GtkScale, since that is what those patches were aimed at.
Close https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gtk/issues/1065
In scroll_event(), there is no need to check whether we are realized
before emitting ::change-value, as we must be when receiving an event.
Git-formatted/rebased/cleaned up by Daniel Boles <dboles.src@gmail.com>
Close https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gtk/issues/292
This will be used in subsequent commits to fix the sign by which the
value is changed in response to directional scroll or keypress events.
The idea is: you have a movement to make – in the form of a delta that
follows widget directions, i.e. −1 means left or up, +1 means right or
down – and you want to know whether that delta needs to be inverted in
order to produce the intuitively expected directional change of :value.
The existing should_invert() is not sufficient: it just determines
whether to invert visually, but we need more nuance than that for input.
To answer that – while not doubling up the work for scrolls and keys – I
add a helper should_invert_move(), which considers other relevant state:
• A parallel movement on priv->orientation should just use the existing
should_invert(), which already worked OK for this case (not others).
• Movements on the other orientation now depend on priv->orientation:
◦ For a horizontal Range, always invert, so up (i.e. −ve in terms of
widget coords) always means increase value & vice-versa. This was
done in get_wheel_delta(), but move it here for use with keys too.
◦ For a vertical Range, ignore :invert as it’s only relevant to the
parallel orientation. Do not care about text direction here either
as RTL locales do not invert number lines, Cartesian plots, etc.
This returns TRUE if the delta should be inverted before applying to the
value, and we can now use this function in both scroll and key handlers.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=407242https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=791802
Users expect, & previous patches have tried to assure, that scrolling up
over a horizontal Range will cause the value to increase & vice-versa.
But the path using directions was still negating the delta & decreasing
the value on scrolling up. This could be seen on Win32 or X without XI2.
So, only negate the delta when scrolling down (or left), not up, so that
scrolling up (or right) will make the value increase for any event type.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=737175#c5
Bug 737175 aimed to ensure that scrolling up on a horizontal range would
result in its value increasing, as that’s what users intuitively expect.
However, its commit 416c370da1 meant that,
if the event gives scroll deltas, we inverted our delta unconditionally.
So it broke horizontal scrolling: scrolling left moved the slider right…
We must only invert if using dy as delta. dx already has the right sign,
so inverting it was wrong.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=788905
It does not hurt us to keep middle clicks doing the same
as shift-primary clicks. This makes the transition from gtk2
less painful in terms of muscle memory.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=787669
This is a workaround for a regression in updating scrollbars in
some applications; notably eog. We haven't fully tracked down yet
why a queue_allocation is not sufficient here, it should.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=765410
We only keep one align flag per child, so it seems odd to
keep separate h/v expand flags. Just keep one expand flag
and interpret it according to orientation. Allow setting
the expand flag for child widgets too, though, so we can
make widget expand without interfering with the recursive
widget expand flag.
Update all callers.
Use the new possibility of expanding child widgets to make
the label of check and radio buttons expand. This fixes
unexpected behavior of these widgets in RTL in some places.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=765742
Since we are really only interested in the center point of the
slider allocation, the pre-computed slider geometry is perfectly
fine, just use it always. This avoids the complication with
gadget visibility.
The slider gadget may be turned invisible as side-effect of
gtk_range_calc_slider(). If that happens,
gtk_css_gadget_get_content_allocation() returns { 0, 0, 0, 0},
which leads us to calculate a negative allocation for the highlight
node. Avoid this, by just reusing our already calculated slider
allocation in this case (it is not technically the same as the
content, allocation, but the difference hardly matter here.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=764022
We previously considered any click inside the trough if it
hit an area that the slider might cover. Bring this behavior
back; the trough of scales is otherwise just too narrow to
hit easily with a click.
The contents node was not getting state updates at all, and the
trough node was missing some state updates as well, because we
were not calling update_trough_state() in all the places where
it is needed.
And add a default color like it was before.
This also fixes other issues with scale values interacting with scale
mark labels, which were buggy at least since 3.18.
The way this method is used from the GtkRange subclasses doesn't really
work well when the slider properties change as a consequence of e.g. a
style class being applied (e.g. the fine-tune style class).
In fact, there's no need to read the minimum slider size out of band,
and we can obtain the same result in a way that always work by setting a
private property on GtkRange.
Since we can use negative margins, we should not use the margin box
for the slider area. Use the border box instead, since that's what is
typically mapped to the visible area.
