The code interprets NULL to mean 'create a new Adjustment and use that,
deposing the old one', but we neither documented nor annotated that
ability, so users could be unsure how to "unlink" a specific Adjustment.
While users could pass their own Adjustment in if this wasn't nullable,
we already support NULL in the code, and it doesn't hurt to document
that this is available as a convenience while retaining the behaviour.
Currently, gtk_event_controller_scroll_handle_event() always returns
TRUE if it is handled, which stops the propagation of the event. If
there’s a single GtkEventControllerScroll in the widget hierarchy, that
means that no others will run, depending on the propagation phase. In
Nautilus, this can be observed when adding a scroll controller to the
GtkScrolledWindow (ctrl-scrolling controls the zoom level) - either the
scrolling or the zooming breaks.
Fixes https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gtk/issues/45
Perform scrollbar visibility checks through a motion controller,
always based on GtkScrolledView-relative coordinates. The captured
event handler remains though, for a tiny bit of GDK_SCROLL event
handling.
GLib master propagates argument types in g_clear_pointer(), which causes
the usual function pointer casts to GDestroyNotify to trip compiler
warnings. Additionally, this commit changes some cleanup functions where
appropriate (wl_data_source_destroy ->
gtk_primary_selection_source_destroy for struct
gtk_primary_selection_source).
(A) Put a space in "scrolled window" like the other doc comments
(B) Say "i.e." rather than "ie."
(C) Fix grammar from "makes [...] exactly reaches" to "exactly reach"
This is an automated change doing these command:
git sed -f g gtk_widget_set_has_window gtk_widget_set_has_surface
git sed -f g gtk_widget_get_has_window gtk_widget_get_has_surface
git sed -f g gtk_widget_set_parent_window gtk_widget_set_parent_surface
git sed -f g gtk_widget_get_parent_window gtk_widget_get_parent_surface
git sed -f g gtk_widget_set_window gtk_widget_set_surface
git sed -f g gtk_widget_get_window gtk_widget_get_surface
git sed -f g gtk_widget_register_window gtk_widget_register_surface
git sed -f g gtk_widget_unregister_window gtk_widget_unregister_surface
git checkout NEWS*
Remove all the old 2.x and 3.x version annotations.
GTK+ 4 is a new start, and from the perspective of a
GTK+ 4 developer all these APIs have been around since
the beginning.
The main GDK thread lock is not portable and deprecated.
The only reason why gdk_threads_add_timeout() and
gdk_threads_add_timeout_full() exist is to allow invoking a callback
with the GDK lock held, in case 3rd party libraries still use the
deprecated gdk_threads_enter()/gdk_threads_leave() API.
Since we're removing the GDK lock, and we're releasing a new major API,
such code cannot exist any more; this means we can use the GLib API for
installing timeout callbacks.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=793124
Change constructors to reflect that.
While doing so, also add a fallback argument to the cursor constructors,
so it is now possible to create cursors with fallback.
This patch makes that work using 1 of 2 options:
1. Add all missing enums to the switch statement
or
2. Cast the switch argument to a uint to avoid having to do that (mostly
for GdkEventType).
I even found a bug while doing that: clearing a GtkImage with a surface
did not notify thae surface property.
The reason for enabling this flag even though it is tedious at times is
that it is very useful when adding values to an enum, because it makes
GTK immediately warn about all the switch statements where this enum is
relevant.
And I expect changes to enums to be frequent during the GTK4 development
cycle.
All kinetic scrolling initial velocity calculations are now
taken from the scroll controller. The handling of timeouts
to snap back when overshooting has been also made to just
apply on devices that can't emit ::scroll-begin/end.
• Use disconnect_by_data() to catch both _adjustment_changed() and now
_adjustment_value_changed(), as the latter had been missed until now.
• Also disconnect from indicator_value_changed(), which was not done in
destroy() due to indicator_reset() and remove_indicator() disagreeing.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=775074
Since setting a clip is mandatory for almost all widgets, we can as well
change the size-allocate signature to include a out_clip parameter, just
like GtkCssGadget did. And since we now always propagate baselines, we
might as well pass that one on to size-allocate.
This way we can also make sure to transform the clip returned from
size-allocate to parent-coordinates, i.e. the same coordinate space
priv->allocation is in.
We now rely on toplevels receiving and forwarding all the events
the windowing should be able to handle. Event masks are no longer a
way to determine whether an event is deliverable ot a widget.
Events will always be delivered in the three captured/target/bubbled
phases, widgets can now just attach GtkEventControllers and let those
handle the events.
POLICY_AUTOMATIC means scrollbars are only shown when needed, i.e. when
the size of the window is not large enough to show the entire child. So
when measuring the preferred size, such scrollbars should be ignored.
But measure() added size for *any* non-overlay scrollbar of the opposite
orientation, e.g. for horizontal size, it added the width of vscrollbar.
So we requested for child + bar, & having enough for child meant that the
policy hid the bar, leaving extra space empty below/right of the child.
Fix this by only adding size for such bars if they use POLICY_ALWAYS.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=778853
• Only calculate the specified dimension – rather than measuring both &
discarding the other (which will often be recalculated right after)
• Only measure a given child scrollbar if it may be visible, not always
• Move variables into narrowest scopes & otherwise improve readability
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=778853
If the child added is not a Scrollable, it gets wrapped in a ViewPort –
which is. So it is impossible to end up with a non-Scrollable child.
Just check we have /any/ child where needed, which is semantically nicer
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=778853
• intro: Clarify that external policy and/or adjustments can be used.
• add(): Don’t waffle on about having to add a ViewPort since we handle
that transparently for the user, so they can add() any widget.
• Adjustment stuff: most of this was repeating the docs for Scrollbar,
so just refer the user to that. Also, mention how
policies NEVER and EXTERNAL interact with all this.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=778853
This reverts commit 901e5ff3a3.
This causes criticals in e.g. the Text View: Multiple Buffers demo.
More work is required to get a fix for Bug 778853 that does not cause
anything else to regress.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=778853
POLICY_AUTOMATIC means scrollbars are only shown when needed, i.e. when
the size of the window is not large enough to show the entire child. So
when measuring the preferred size, such scrollbars should be ignored.
But measure() was adding size for bars for which policy_may_be_visible()
was TRUE, which it returns for POLICY_ALWAYS (good) & _AUTOMATIC (bad).
So we reserved space for child plus scrollbars, & because we have enough
space for the child, POLICY_AUTOMATIC hides the scrollbar, leaving the
extra reserved space empty at the right/bottom sides of the child. This
is very noticeable/inconvenient for non-overlay, automatic scrollbars.
Fix this by only requesting size for scrollbars that use POLICY_ALWAYS,
rather than basing the decision on policy_may_be_visible().
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=778853
the scrollbar passed in better be either priv->hscrollbar or
priv->vscrollbar. Ensure that by using a simple else instead of an
else-if and a g_assert.
...which treats the first '.' in doc comments as the end of the summary.
So, e.g., in gtkmm, get_kinetic_scrolling() is currently summarised as
"Changes the behaviour of @scrolled_window wrt." Not very informative!
No need for a period there & anyway, the phrase "wrt to" is superfluous,
and we have space to actually say "with regard to", so just do that now.
