Compiz ‘Thumbnail Window Previews’ artefacts (further fix +)
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ubuntu MATE |
Invalid
|
Low
|
Unassigned | ||
compiz (Ubuntu) |
Fix Released
|
Low
|
Martin Wimpress | ||
Xenial |
Fix Released
|
Undecided
|
Unassigned |
Bug Description
[Impact]
With current settings, Galculator creates an unsightly additive thumbnail artefact which remains after thumbnail preview closes (screen capture link).
http://
[Test case]
1. Open GCalculator
2. Verify no artifacts are done
[Possible regressions]
Shadows might be not visible
# Fix
org.compiz.
- active-
+ active-
- active-
+ active-
- inactive-
+ inactive-
- inactive-
+ inactive-
# This fix also benefits all Compiz windows, as shadows become more proportionally balanced.
___
# Recommendation
With current settings, thumbnails occupy almost half the screen vertically on a Netbook (1024x600 resolution).
# Fix
org.compiz.
- thumb-size 280
+ thumb-size 256
___
Edit: Simplified bug report/fix, tried to improved readability. Thanks
Related branches
- Marco Trevisan (Treviño): Approve
- Compiz Maintainers: Pending requested
-
Diff: 43 lines (+9/-9)1 file modifieddebian/mate.ini (+9/-9)
- Andrea Azzarone: Approve
-
Diff: 1777 lines (+936/-94)31 files modifiedVERSION (+1/-1)
debian/changelog (+28/-0)
debian/mate.ini (+9/-9)
debian/profile_upgrades/com.canonical.unity.unity-lowgfx.01.upgrade (+12/-0)
debian/unity-lowgfx.ini (+8/-2)
debian/unity.ini (+0/-1)
gtk/window-decorator/decorator.c (+2/-0)
gtk/window-decorator/metacity.c (+2/-0)
gtk/window-decorator/util.c (+1/-1)
include/core/abiversion.h (+1/-1)
include/core/atoms.h (+2/-0)
include/core/screen.h (+7/-1)
include/core/string.h (+3/-0)
plugins/grid/grid.xml.in (+10/-0)
plugins/grid/src/grid.cpp (+67/-22)
plugins/grid/src/grid.h (+0/-1)
plugins/move/move.xml.in (+58/-0)
plugins/move/src/move.cpp (+326/-2)
plugins/move/src/move.h (+16/-1)
plugins/neg/neg.xml.in (+5/-0)
plugins/neg/src/neg.cpp (+1/-1)
plugins/resize/resize.xml.in (+15/-0)
plugins/resize/src/logic/src/resize-logic.cpp (+8/-6)
plugins/resize/src/resize.cpp (+137/-37)
src/atoms.cpp (+4/-0)
src/event.cpp (+5/-0)
src/privatescreen.h (+6/-0)
src/privatescreen/tests/test-privatescreen.cpp (+2/-0)
src/screen.cpp (+137/-6)
src/string/src/string.cpp (+61/-0)
src/window.cpp (+2/-2)
- Compiz Maintainers: Pending requested
-
Diff: 1684 lines (+1650/-0) (has conflicts)3 files modifieddebian/changelog (+93/-0)
gtk/window-decorator/decorator.c (+2/-0)
gtk/window-decorator/metacity.c.OTHER (+1555/-0)
description: | updated |
description: | updated |
description: | updated |
Changed in compiz (Ubuntu): | |
milestone: | none → xenial-updates |
importance: | Undecided → Low |
assignee: | nobody → Martin Wimpress (flexiondotorg) |
status: | New → Triaged |
Changed in ubuntu-mate: | |
status: | New → Triaged |
importance: | Undecided → Low |
Changed in compiz (Ubuntu): | |
milestone: | xenial-updates → none |
description: | updated |
description: | updated |
Changed in compiz (Ubuntu): | |
status: | Triaged → In Progress |
status: | In Progress → Fix Committed |
Changed in ubuntu-mate: | |
status: | Triaged → Invalid |
description: | updated |
The solution proposed by David Black won't eliminate all artefacts related to the thumbnail window previews. To see this, apply the proposed solution and then just type "wish" in a MATE-Terminal. The resulting window has a geometry of 200x200, and the corresponding thumbnail still gives rise to the reported artefact. Same problem with any other top-level window having a sufficiently small size.
Alternative solution: Change org.compiz. profiles. mate.plugins. thumbnail. border from the value 12 to 19 (or higher).
With this patch, I could no longer reproduce that annoying thumbnail artefact, regardless of whether the change proposed by David Black was in effect or not.
BTW: IMHO, the shadow effect generated by the original offset value of 6 (for active- shadow- x-offset, active- shadow- y-offset, inactive- shadow- x-offset and inactive- shadow- y-offset) looks better than the one corresponding to the proposed offset value of 2). Of course, this is just matter of taste.