Re: [PUSHED 3-5] some shape position skew

From the description, reverting is good :)

Done

F.

On 08/06/12 12:56, Noel Power wrote:
> although 31012ab9d7035f942486c87ecc1a79b4d6579975 ( and associated fix
> 8a838b9fbf46ece9680824cd3a044ab7338bf306 ) make the document mentioned
> in https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=116848 behave better
> with zoom, it makes other documents much worse ( even at 100% zoom )
> e.g. the document attached to  fdo#49430. When you modify the zoom then
> the situation gets much much worse. So what I see is
>
> a) with commits 31012ab9d7035f942486c87ecc1a79b4d6579975 ( and
> associated fix 8a838b9fbf46ece9680824cd3a044ab7338bf306 ) we have one
> test document ( associated with the orig bug ) that experiences no skew
> of the relative position of the shape to the position of the cell the
> shape is anchored to ( regardless of the zoom ). However we have other
> documents ( typically where the shapes are located further down the
> document ) where there is significant skew between the shape position
> and associated cell it is anchored to. Note: in these cases changing the
> zoom results in wild relative position changes ( e.g. a number of rows
> offset )
>
> b) with the commits above reverted the test document associated with
> i#116848 is indeed not behaving itself at zoom levels other than 100% (
> so that bug will still exist ) but... with the other scenario ( with
> shapes located much further down the document e.g. with the document
> attached to fdo#49430 ) behave much better, indeed the shapes ( at 100%
> zoom ) are at the correct position. In both cases changing the zoom
> seems only to affect the relative position error in a small way ( e.g.
> less than a row height )
>
> Eike we discussed this previously on IRC and I already reverted these
> patches on master, I think we should revert these on 3.5 also, to me the
> behaviour without these commits is better than with them ( but thats
> just my opinion hence the review request ) It would be great to fix the
> underlying error, unfortunately I didn't have any luck with that. So...
> please consider reverting 31012ab9d7035f942486c87ecc1a79b4d6579975 ( and
> associated fix 8a838b9fbf46ece9680824cd3a044ab7338bf306 )
>
> thanks,
>
> Noel
>
> _______________________________________________
> LibreOffice mailing list
> LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice