Dialogue Sub-Views

Involved development of the OpenMW construction set.
User avatar
sirherrbatka
Posts: 2159
Joined: 07 Aug 2011, 17:21

Re: Dialogue Sub-Views

Post by sirherrbatka »

BTW, since we are getting editor dialog we may consider hiding description column on table view. Simply because descriptions are loooooooooooooooong when compared with other strings.

http://wstaw.org/m/2014/03/10/zrzut94.png

Right now dialog chooses qplaintext widget for every display_string longer than 50 chars. I'm not sure if we want to keep this behavior or limit it to the descriptions.
User avatar
Zini
Posts: 5538
Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 15:16

Re: Dialogue Sub-Views

Post by Zini »

I don't see a reason to exclude descriptions from the tables. If the user does not want to include the descriptions, he can remove them via column filters.

Determining the widget type based on the text length is suboptimal. Among other things this would mean the same field could be represented differently for different records. And I don't even want to get into what happens if you have a short text that is expanded later.

The right thing to do here is to differentiate the Display type further. Display_LongString maybe? Used for descriptions and dialogue text.
User avatar
sirherrbatka
Posts: 2159
Joined: 07 Aug 2011, 17:21

Re: Dialogue Sub-Views

Post by sirherrbatka »

ok, done and done.

http://wstaw.org/m/2014/03/10/zrzut95.png

Strings and enum columns that are not editable are now displayed in QLabels. Those labels replace normal widgets – handling dynamicly disabled fields can be a little bit annoying but is it even needed?
User avatar
Zini
Posts: 5538
Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 15:16

Re: Dialogue Sub-Views

Post by Zini »

I don't think we currently have any non-editable fields that are specific to a subset of referenceable records (I presume that is what you mean with dynamic). I doubt this will change in the future.

Looks good overall. Where are we standing now? The field state icon idea of yours? Anything else missing (except for the dialogue mode only fields obviously, for which we don't have columns yet) ?
User avatar
sirherrbatka
Posts: 2159
Joined: 07 Aug 2011, 17:21

Re: Dialogue Sub-Views

Post by sirherrbatka »

Where are we standing now?
Overall works but i still need to handle referencables (not sure what i'm missing). There is also bug in the class tables: i'm not able to change attributes using table and combobox in the editor is empty initially (though it is possible to change it). Not sure if i broke it or it wasn't working in the first place (compiling from scratch takes awfull lot of time, don't hate me).

After dealing with it: next and prev buttons, deleting and so one.
The field state icon idea of yours?
At this point I decided to move it post 1.0. There are more important tasks right now.
User avatar
Zini
Posts: 5538
Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 15:16

Re: Dialogue Sub-Views

Post by Zini »

Changing attributes in the class table works fine here.
User avatar
sirherrbatka
Posts: 2159
Joined: 07 Aug 2011, 17:21

Re: Dialogue Sub-Views

Post by sirherrbatka »

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ipmgyl9jhxysmws/out.ogv?m=
This is how it is broken for me, to be precise. I will investigate tomorrow.
User avatar
sirherrbatka
Posts: 2159
Joined: 07 Aug 2011, 17:21

Re: Dialogue Sub-Views

Post by sirherrbatka »

Problem solved. And about the referencables…

it seems that when i try to create dialog view for referencable, opencs attempts to create it for specific referencable type, for instance clothing – that's why it fails.
User avatar
Zini
Posts: 5538
Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 15:16

Re: Dialogue Sub-Views

Post by Zini »

I see. I guess the only way around that is to remap UniversalIds in CSVDoc::View::addSubView (check for individual types and create a new UniversalId using the general refereceable type (Type_Referenceable) instead).
User avatar
sirherrbatka
Posts: 2159
Joined: 07 Aug 2011, 17:21

Re: Dialogue Sub-Views

Post by sirherrbatka »

this works, thanks. We need to put this into the scroll area or something…
http://wstaw.org/m/2014/03/11/zrzut97.png :lol:
Post Reply