Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

get fill transparency of edit geom from preference store #313

Conversation

sloob
Copy link
Contributor

@sloob sloob commented Oct 10, 2018

Adds the possibility to specify the factor to reduce the transparency of the color used to fill the geoms on the EditBlackboard.

Signed-off-by: sloob sebastian.loob@ibykus.de

Signed-off-by: sloob <sebastian.loob@ibykus.de>
@@ -116,6 +116,8 @@ EditToolPreferences_snapRadius = Snap Radius

EditToolPreferences_vertexDiameter = Vertex Diameter

EditToolPrefernece_fillTransparency = Reduce Fill Transparency (0-100)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Wondering if describes "Fill Transparency" what this preferences is about. In addition validation of min/max values of of inputField allows only valid inputs.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi @fgdrf
a value of 0 means, that the fill of the edit geom is transparent. A value of 100 means, that there is no transparency. Maybe the right description is 'Geometry fill' or 'Opacity'?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good point, just had a look at Style Dialogs and I agree, we should have a consitent usage within uDig:

grafik

Let's use "Fill Opacity" for now and "Vertex Opacity" for #324

@fgdrf
Copy link
Contributor

fgdrf commented Oct 23, 2018

Thanks for this contribution and improvement!

Signed-off-by: sloob <sebastian.loob@ibykus.de>
@fgdrf
Copy link
Contributor

fgdrf commented Oct 23, 2018

While submitting the other pull request I noticed a missmatch betwenn labeled "Opacity" and internal usage of variables "transparency".

because #313 is submitted we have merge conflictes for this change. Can you please resolve these and rename variables and properties?

Many Thanks!

Signed-off-by: sloob <sebastian.loob@ibykus.de>
@@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ EditToolPreferences_snapRadius = Snap Radius

EditToolPreferences_vertexDiameter = Vertex Diameter

EditToolPrefernece_fillTransparency = Reduce Fill Transparency (0-100)
EditToolPrefernece_fillTransparency = Fill Opacity
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would you refactor this property to EditToolPreferences_fillOpacity and update screenshot for EditTool Preferences page (doc).

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

hi @fgdrf,
yes i can do that. I try to fix it this week.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

the last commit also fixes the misspelling variable for the vertex opacity, so i think #328 is not needed anymore

Signed-off-by: sloob <sebastian.loob@ibykus.de>
@fgdrf fgdrf merged commit 5a81925 into locationtech:master Nov 1, 2018
@fgdrf
Copy link
Contributor

fgdrf commented Nov 1, 2018

@sloob Again, many thanks for this improvement!

@sloob sloob deleted the extended_preference_settings_fill_transparency branch November 1, 2018 11:37
fgdrf pushed a commit to fgdrf/udig-platform that referenced this pull request Dec 23, 2019
* get fill opacity of edit geom from preference store

Signed-off-by: sloob <sebastian.loob@ibykus.de>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants