| Saviq | Good friday o/ | 07:23 |
|---|---|---|
| Saviq | alan_g hey, so unless I'm missing something, it's not about fullscreen or not - in BasicWindowManager we only ever respect the window-requested `output_id`, not that from `modifications` | 07:51 |
| alan_g[m] | Where are you looking? | 07:53 |
| Saviq | Really, anywhere in `BasicWindowManager`; `::display_area_for` only takes the `WindowInfo`, not the `WindowSpecification` | 07:57 |
| Saviq | Only `::update_attached_and_fullscreen_sets` takes `modification.output_id` into account | 07:58 |
| Saviq | And `::place_and_size_for_state`, but only to decide whether to even look at anything else | 07:59 |
| Saviq | I could, of course, override `top_left` in `FrameWindowManager`, but it probably makes more sense to actually respect the modifications one? | 08:06 |
| alan_g[m] | Yeah, the only place I see using it is `place_new_surface()` - which is called to populate the default `requested_specification` for `WindowManagementPolicy::place_new_window()`. I think we need the same logic in `place_and_size_for_state()` | 08:23 |
| alan_g[m] | ...and, like you say, `place_and_size_for_state()` uses `display_area_for(window_info)`, without considering the `modifications.output_id()`. | 08:35 |
| alan_g[m] | Hmm, even more "interesting" `case mir_window_state_fullscreen:` calls `display_area_for` instead of using the existing `display_area`. | 08:48 |
| -GitHub[m]:#mir-server- **[MirServer/mir]** AlanGriffiths opened [pull request #2700](https://github.com/MirServer/mir/pull/2700): [miral] Respect the output id supplied when modifying a window | 08:55 | |
| -GitHub[m]:#mir-server- **[MirServer/mir]** AlanGriffiths requested a review from Saviq for [pull request #2700](https://github.com/MirServer/mir/pull/2700): [miral] Respect the output id supplied when modifying a window | 09:36 | |
| Saviq | While that looks better, it doesn't help in Frame, 'cause we're spoofing the state to be maximized… Should `::confirm_placement_on_display` take `modifications.output_id` into account as well, or does maximized with `output_id` not make sense? | 10:24 |
| Saviq | We're doing the spoofing to respect exclusive zones (i.e. OSK). Which is, in itself, a disuptable thing to do, but we have no other mechanism to inform app of occluded areas atm. | 10:29 |
| alan_g[m] | You're right about the spoofing. It will only work because `place_new_surface()` does respect the output_id and that is called for an initial placement | 10:36 |
| alan_g[m] | So, we could spoof with something like:... (full message at <https://libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/download/libera.chat/f1302894bb148d8f9680b42bc51c8839f8bdf7f6>) | 10:38 |
| Saviq | Ah. funky. Will try | 10:39 |
| alan_g[m] | NB I'm not suggesting this is "good" | 10:40 |
| Saviq | I know, but not much worse than what we do currently. It's at least inconsistent that we respect `WindowInfo::output_id`, but not `WindowSpecification::output_id` when maximized | 10:41 |
| Saviq | Which nudges me we should make a call (or respect the protocol, if that's defined there), and stick to it. | 10:42 |
| alan_g[m] | I think the problem is that we trying to use the default placement logic to override the default placement logic | 10:45 |
| Saviq | That, too :) | 10:45 |
| Saviq | But even despite that, IMO we need to be consistent on respecting, or not, `::output_id` when *maximized | 10:45 |
| alan_g[m] | Just having Frame use its own place_and_size_for_state would be better | 10:45 |
| Saviq | That basically was https://github.com/MirServer/ubuntu-frame/pull/29 | 10:46 |
| alan_g[m] | Well, which protocol do you want to respect? wl-shell and xdg-shell only specify an output for fullscreen requests. | 10:46 |
| alan_g[m] | Wheras mir-shell... | 10:47 |
| alan_g[m] | Our window management API can what we choose | 10:47 |
| alan_g[m] | E.g. if a modify request specifies an output, then we can choose to respect it regardless of the window state. But xdg-shell clients won't specifiy it unless it's a fullscreen request. But do we remember the output on new requests, or reset it? | 10:52 |
| Saviq | Yeah, I suppose maximized with output_id is not something we explicitly enabled, that it works is more of an accident, but that's something that I think we should fix one way or the other. | 11:07 |
| alan_g[m] | Well, it doesn't work - which is why we spoof it in Frame | 11:16 |
| alan_g[m] | So, the miral API isn't exposing the right primitives. What we have is "place_and_size_for_state", what we want is "place_and_size_with_options", and the options are derived from the state | 11:29 |
| Saviq | > Well, it doesn't work | 12:05 |
| Saviq | IIUC maximized with output_id _does_ work, that's what we (ab)use in Frame to have things fullscreened, but respect the exclusive zones of the OSK… | 12:05 |
| alan_g[m] | I think what currently happens is we fullscreen with output_id (which places it on the output) and then maximise to respect the application_zone of that output. | 12:56 |
| alan_g[m] | Oh, I misunderstood. You mean it uses the output_id already associated with the window_info | 12:59 |
| alan_g[m] | Yeah, it is all a bit inconsistent | 13:03 |
| Saviq | Looks like that did it, thanks! | 13:33 |
| alan_g[m] | One of these cycles miral needs reworking! This didn't break any of the `WindowPlacement*` tests. | 14:13 |
| -GitHub[m]:#mir-server- **[MirServer/mir]** Saviq assigned to [pull request #2700](https://github.com/MirServer/mir/pull/2700): [miral] Respect the output id supplied when modifying a window | 15:08 | |
| alan_g[m] | Have a good weekend! 0/ | 16:59 |
| Saviq | Same \o | 17:00 |
| -GitHub[m]:#mir-server- **[MirServer/mir]** bors[bot] merged [pull request #2700](https://github.com/MirServer/mir/pull/2700): [miral] Respect the output id supplied when modifying a window | 17:30 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!