I understand it's the expected outcome, but why was it changed? None of the bugs which the MP claimed to fix require this change.
Actually, if you look at line 209 of the diff (at https://code.launchpad.net/~tpeeters/ubuntu-ui-toolkit/invisible-header-topmargin/+merge/290659) you'll see that a unit test was changed to accommodate for this behavioural change. Which proves that there has been a behavioural change in the first place. :-)
Why do we need to *sum* the header's height to the flickable.topMargin? I think that the correct solution should be to *replace* the flickable.topMargin with the header height, while the header is active on the flickable. I don't see any reason why the two values should be summed.
I understand it's the expected outcome, but why was it changed? None of the bugs which the MP claimed to fix require this change. /code.launchpad .net/~tpeeters/ ubuntu- ui-toolkit/ invisible- header- topmargin/ +merge/ 290659) you'll see that a unit test was changed to accommodate for this behavioural change. Which proves that there has been a behavioural change in the first place. :-)
Actually, if you look at line 209 of the diff (at https:/
Why do we need to *sum* the header's height to the flickable. topMargin? I think that the correct solution should be to *replace* the flickable.topMargin with the header height, while the header is active on the flickable. I don't see any reason why the two values should be summed.