QML demo skin additions #3992
QML demo skin additions #3992
Conversation
|
Wooo, this gets nicer and nicer! Though, I have an issue with the sliders: single-click to set the position interferes with double-click to reset because clicks are processed separately, which leads to double click first setting the new value, then resetting the knob. |
Holzhaus
force-pushed
the
qml-demo-skin-additions
branch
2 times, most recently
from
f6da4f8
to
9ab6532
Compare
|
I improved the mic/aux units and added ducking settings. This is ready now. |
| horizontalTileMode: BorderImage.Stretch | ||
| verticalTileMode: BorderImage.Stretch | ||
| source: Theme.imgSectionBackground | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
would it work to set anchor.fill: parent here? it would make sense since that is the most common usecase
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is, but if you don't want to use anchor.fill, defining it in the component makes it weird to use. Use need to explicitly set it to undefined then. I think it's the "callers" responsibility to define the size.
| height: parent.height | ||
| width: 56 | ||
|
|
||
| Skin.InfoBarButton { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
not sure why this happens, but clicking this button, pressing cancel in the "no input device selected"-popup and then pressing anywhere else activates the button again. I don't know whether we can do much about that or whether its our responsibility to do that. Same issue also occurs with the passthrough buttons of the decks.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No idea, probably because the button didn't receive the release signal or something? We can try to debug that separately.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, we should document it on the project board though.
Holzhaus
force-pushed
the
qml-demo-skin-additions
branch
from
ab3c3e0
to
314c474
Compare
| Mixxx.ControlProxy { | ||
| id: playControl | ||
|
|
||
| readonly property bool playing: value != 0 | ||
|
|
||
| function stop() { | ||
| value = 0; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| group: root.group | ||
| key: "play" | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| Mixxx.ControlProxy { | ||
| id: ejectControl | ||
|
|
||
| function trigger() { | ||
| value = 1; | ||
| value = 0; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| group: root.group | ||
| key: "eject" | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IMO it would make sense that once we make COs "richer", we should add them to the built-in components we already ship.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
True, we can consider that once we have a pretty complete, polished skin. Right now, we're refactoring all the time so I think it's too early to extract stuff like this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree. We just shouldn't forget to go back and actually do that once we're at the appropriate stage.
| value = 1; | ||
| value = 0; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure, but I think setting the value twice is unnecessary. Whats important is just that the signal for the change in value gets emitted. Even if the value wasn't actually changed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But it kind of seems hacky to me tbh. Maybe the cpp ControlProxy object should have a trigger method to emit a value change signal without changing anything.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes. The CO interface is a bit strange for that though. IIRC you can configure a CO to swallow such signals when the value doesn't change as well. I guess this was a design decision made driven by the old Skin system...
Some improvements for the demo skin, that brings it closer to being usable: