Skip to content

get fill transparency of edit geom from preference store#313

Merged
fgdrf merged 4 commits into
locationtech:masterfrom
sloob:extended_preference_settings_fill_transparency
Nov 1, 2018
Merged

get fill transparency of edit geom from preference store#313
fgdrf merged 4 commits into
locationtech:masterfrom
sloob:extended_preference_settings_fill_transparency

Conversation

@sloob

@sloob sloob commented Oct 10, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

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>

EditToolPreferences_vertexDiameter = Vertex Diameter

EditToolPrefernece_fillTransparency = Reduce Fill Transparency (0-100)

Copy link
Copy Markdown
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
Copy Markdown
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
Copy Markdown
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

fgdrf commented Oct 23, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Thanks for this contribution and improvement!

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

fgdrf commented Oct 23, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

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>
EditToolPreferences_vertexDiameter = Vertex Diameter

EditToolPrefernece_fillTransparency = Reduce Fill Transparency (0-100)
EditToolPrefernece_fillTransparency = Fill Opacity

Copy link
Copy Markdown
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
Copy Markdown
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
Copy Markdown
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

fgdrf commented Nov 1, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@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.

2 participants