actions: add "loop" variants of "switch-{next,previous,left,right,up,down}"

[davvid]

The "switch-next", "switch-prev" and related actions currently do
nothing once they reach the last window in the action's direction.
Add "loop" variants of these actions that loop around when the last
window is reached.

The new actions are "switch-previous-loop", "switch-next-loop",
"switch-left-loop", "switch-right-loop", "switch-up-loop" and
"switch-down-loop".

[jtaala]

Thanks @davvid!

This would need to be an option though (e.g. in preferences) to enable/disable this behaviour.

It doesn't "feel" right to me, although maybe it's just because I prefer, and am used to the original behaviour. Others might like this though, so would consider accepting this if it's made a user option (with default behaviour as it is currently).

Cheers,

Jay.

[jtaala]

Reach out if you need a hand in adding this to preferences!

[jtaala]

Just adding this here for context as to why wrap-around was not implemented previously: #278

[davvid]

Alrighty, I added a preference for the loop-around so that it's opt-in. Thanks for the context.

I updated everything except for schemas/gschemas.compiled. Do you want me to run make -C schemas to regenerate it and commit that as well? I did regenerate the compiled schemas to get things working (on a separate cycle-windows/gnome-44 branch because I'm currently on gnome 44.8) but I didn't commit it since it's a binary file and it seemed worth holding off on that in case there's review notes that might affect the final schema.

Thanks for being open to adding this feature. cheers!

[Lythenas]

This works fine as is, so from my side would be fine to merge (after generating the schema).

[smichel17]

Would it make sense to add this as a different action (no default keybinding) instead of a setting?

On February 21, 2024 5:21:52 PM UTC, Matthias Seiffert ***@***.***> wrote: This works fine as is, so from my side would be fine to merge (after generating the schema). -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: #787 (comment) You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ***@***.***>

-- To respect your time, I try to write short, functional emails.

[jtaala]

This works fine as is, so from my side would be fine to merge (after generating the schema).

I thought I was doing something wrong here as I couldn't get this to work. Then I realised this works for switch-next, switch-previous but NOT for the switch-left, switch-right (which I use - also realised I don't even use switch next/previous).

From the description I would expect this to also work for switch-left, switch-right - thoughts on implementing this for switch-left, switch-right as well (if the option is enabled)?

I guess it comes down to if this behaviour (if enabled) only makes sense for switch-next/switch-previous and not the switch left/right keybinds.

[jtaala]

This works fine as is, so from my side would be fine to merge (after generating the schema).

I thought I was doing something wrong here as I couldn't get this to work. Then I realised this works for switch-next, switch-previous but NOT for the switch-left, switch-right (which I use - also realised I don't even use switch next/previous).

From the description I would expect this to also work for switch-left, switch-right - thoughts on implementing this for switch-left, switch-right as well?

This is another option, and would have been much easier to implement (sorry @davvid!). I guess keybinds would allow uses to assign keybinds for both use cases (or just one by replacing the defaults if you always wanted wrap around).

See comment #787 (comment) - keybinds would make more sense here (keybinds for switch-next-loop, switch-previous-loop AND switch-left-loop, switch-right-loop) since this would allow users to choose their preferred use case (maybe they only want loop for left/right and not next/previous..., or vice-versa,... or both). I.e. this would be more customisable than a single option for both (and less confusing that adding another option for left/right).

[davvid]

Good stuff, yeah these do feel like distinct actions. I'll take a stab at that when I get a chance later this or next week. Another nice thing is we won't need to change the schemas or add more options to the UI.

[davvid]

I've split these out to separate actions and regenerated the schemas. Let me know what you think.

[jtaala]

Thanks @davvid - just reordered and simplified keybind descriptions.

Planning on merging this one into develop and doing a release for this soon.