Skip to content

picom: add windowType option#1163

Closed
dermetfan wants to merge 2 commits intonix-community:masterfrom
dermetfan:picom
Closed

picom: add windowType option#1163
dermetfan wants to merge 2 commits intonix-community:masterfrom
dermetfan:picom

Conversation

@dermetfan
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Description

It was previously not possible to configure other windows types through extraConfig because the wintypes key was already used. Adding this option allows unlimited configuration.

I kept noDNDShadow, noDockShadow, and menuOpacity as shortcuts.

Checklist

  • Code formatted with ./format.

  • Code tested through nix-shell --pure tests -A run.all. (no new failures)

  • [ ] Test cases updated/added.

  • Commit messages are formatted like

    {component}: {description}
    
    {long description}
    

It was previously not possible to configure other windows types
because the window key was already used.
@dermetfan dermetfan changed the title picom: add windowTypes option picom: add windowType option Apr 23, 2020
};
};
default = { };
description = "Specific settings for this window type.";
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This sounds very generic, specifically what does "this" refer to w.r.t window types?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The same holds for the descriptions above.

notify = rulesOption;
combo = rulesOption;
dnd = rulesOption;
};
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

From what I can tell this will introduce something like 90 options, does picom make any guarantees that these options are safe w.r.t backward and forward compatibility? If not then this could be quite unpleasant to maintain. Would it be possible to do something more in line of RFC #42?

@rycee
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

rycee commented Apr 26, 2020

Thanks for the contribution! I've added a few comments.

@rycee
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

rycee commented Jan 23, 2021

I'm inclined to close this PR without merging due to the large number of options and that nobody has been pushing particularly hard for this to go in. I will close for now, if anybody disagrees then feel free to make a comment and re-open.

@rycee rycee closed this Jan 23, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants