Fix #269672: Show selected notes on the Piano Keyboard

[yukisaw]

https://musescore.org/en/node/269672

[lasconic]

Good start but

1. It doesn't work in the case of a range selection (Shift + Click)
2. It doesn't work in the case of multiple notehead selection (with Ctrl + Click)
3. What does "chordpart" means exactly ? it needs a better name
4. If I understand the use of -n->pitch() correctly, it's an ugly hack... it needs at least a comment, but it would be best to avoid the hack altogether.

[yukisaw]

1. I don`t think this has to work on range selection.
2. Same as 1st. But probably I can add this like several active and inactive pitches at one time. That's not hard, but need a lot of "if" conditions.
3. Part of chord =) I will rename it when found a better name.
4. Need to change logic to avoid this.

And all these things will take much more than 15 minutes I spent on this code. So don`t know when the request will be done.

[anatoly-os]

@yukisaw so you did 80% of work for 20% of time. Since it is not must have functionality, it is better to spend more (free) time to finish it later, isn't it?

[yukisaw]

1 Skipped
2, 3 Resolved
4 Another hack.

[Jojo-Schmitz]

in master we're using isNote() and toNote() instead, here and in other places of this PR

[yukisaw]

There is no isNote() and toNote() methods at MuseScore 2.2

[Jojo-Schmitz]

Ah, didn't notice this was o(only) for 2.2

[anatoly-os]

I'm sure now it is worse than it was. I mean bit shift.

[anatoly-os]

Shifting bits is even worse than using 'minus'. What is going on?

[yukisaw]

Last one. That`s totally stupid. Was very easy solution on 22 lines.

[anatoly-os]

In 3.0 piano code was fully reworked. So, it will be impossible to merge it to 3.0. And 3.0 has good methods like pressPitch() and releasePitch() without operations on ints. So, maybe implement it in 3.0?

[yukisaw]

You may make it by you own.

[anatoly-os]

@yukisaw I assume the last comment was addressed to me. I meant, implement it ONLY in 3.0 and avoid such unclear code in 2.2. I still don't understand the reason why we're implementing it.

[mattmcclinch]

I am sensing that there are still issues with this PR. So I would like to offer #3489 as an alternative.

[lasconic]

#3489 looks better.