Inkscape 0.91: measuring tool can´t measure several paths at once any longer

[Arnold]

I updated my workaround to Inkscape 0.91 (64-bit-Version) on a WIN 8.1 machine. When I mark several paths at once and try to measure them with ->Extensions->visualize path->measure path, I only receive a measure for the first marked path. All the other paths are labeled with "0,00"

[su_v (suv-lp)]

Not reproduced with Inkscape 0.91 r13725 on OS X 10.7.5 (locale: en_US.UTF-8): the 'Measure path' extension produces the same expected result if applied to a selection of multiple lines as Inkscape 0.48.5 (each path is measured and labeled separately and correctly).

Please attach a test case (Inkscape SVG) file with paths which reproduce the reported issue.
Which locale settings and menu language do you use?

[jazzynico (jazzynico)]

Not reproduced on Windows XP, Inkscape 0.91 and trunk rev. 13986.

[Per Gustafsson (per-g-t)]

I have the same problem with Inkscape 0.91 r13725, Windows 7 professional sp1

[su_v (suv-lp)]

Reproduced with Inkscape 0.91 r13725 and 0.91+devel r14178 on OS X 10.7.5 - results are incorrect (randomly smaller AFAICT) except for the first generated label if units other than 'px' are used.

Steps to reproduce:
1) launch inkscape
2) draw horizontal line
3) duplicate and move line several times
4) select all > measure path

Only with 'px' the result is as expected - with any other unit, just the first (in stack order) created measurement label has the expected value, the rest seem to have random values (or '0'), unrelated to the length of the path they are put on.

Not reproduced with Inkscape 0.48.5.

[su_v (suv-lp)]

Possible fix (use local variable for factor per node inside selection loop - line 197 probably could be moved out of the loop altogether).

[Alvin Penner (apenner)]

yes, I think moving this code out of the loop entirely sounds like an excellent idea, not entirely sure why it was there in the first place.
What do you think of the following patch? I haven't tested it very extensively, but it passed my preliminary test okay.

[su_v (suv-lp)]

@Alvin - 'measure_fix.diff' tested ok for me with 0.91 and 0.91+devel r14178. I think it is the better solution (to move the code outside the loop).

[Alvin Penner (apenner)]

good to hear. fix committed to rev 14182

[su_v (suv-lp)]

Fix backported to 0.91.x in rev 13796.