The GVariant we are getting here might not be coming
from GTK+, but rather from some other source. Best to
be forgiving and deal with missing data without crashing.
This was causing the GTK+ portal backends to crash on
print requests from Qt.
It might happen otherwise that a change is recorded in between the
widget dispose and finalization, causing a crash when setting
the visible name for the GtkStack (as that will be NULL at that point)
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
If widgets want to clip things, they now need to do it themselves.
By not taking care of clip, we avoid the need to track clip. And by not
tracking clip, we can avoid all unnecessary cache invalidations that we
were doing for render nodes whenever the clip changed.
And when you are scrolling, the clip changes *a lot*.
priv->button is a guint, but we assigned it to a local gint.
gtk/gtkmenushell.c:734:37: warning: comparison between signed and
unsigned integer expressions [-Wsign-compare]
if (button && (new_button != button) && priv->parent_menu_shell)
^
...from CellRenderer::start-editing, to point people in the direction of
info about the lifecycle of the Editable and how to do generic setup.
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gtk/issues/154
Drop the line copied from .activate(), replace it with a description of
what this method actually does, and explain what a NULL result means.
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gtk/issues/154
* Note in the intro that we're really thinking about temporary widgets
* Mention a gotcha regarding GtkEntry and how ::focus-out stops editing
* Give some examples of what you'd want to do in ::editing-done
* Be a bit more precise about what ::remove-widget represents
* Summarise the lifecycle between Renderer/Editable in .start_editing()
* Emphasise again there that this should be viewed as a temporary widget
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gtk/issues/154
When filing a new merge request it's often hard to know who to ask for a
review; using the Git log doesn't always help — the person that touched
a file last may just be fixing the build or a compiler warning.
The `CODE-OWNERS` file format is something that GitHub uses in order to
pre-fill the list of reviewers:
https://help.github.com/articles/about-codeowners/
Ideally, in the future, we'll be able to use this file with a bot like
homu to automatically go through newly filed merge requests and
automatically ask the relevant people for reviews, instead of doing this
manually.
