Re: Minor suggestions for the build plugin
[email protected] Sun, 04 Feb 2024 00:41:46 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.kde.devel.kwrite |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 2024-02-03 19:22, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > Hi, > > I have a few small things which I'd like to change in the build plugin: Hi, > > When making the filter text for the targets shorter (e.g. after > selecting and > building a target, and then clearing the edit line), the treeview jumps > to the > beginning of the list of the targets. Although the previously selected > target > is still selected, this is not visible. I have to scroll down manually > to see > whether it is still selected. > I would much prefer if the selected target would stay visible. > This is a one-liner in the lambda connected to > targetFilterEdit::textChanged(), I would simply add a > scrollTo(currentIndex) > there. Ok ? would make sense for me. > > If I double click a target which comes from the project plugin, I can > still > edit it. I think this doesn't make sense, since the change will be > overriden > the next time the project plugin updates the targets. Ok to make > project- > targets non-editable ? Hmm, is editing that common? Perhaps we should always do that and allow to edit only via context menu. > > Should non-editable targets be built when double clicking ? > Would feel comfortable for me. OTOH then they would behave differently > than the > other targets. What do you think ? > > I would like to be able to change the width of the columns manually. It > feels > really annoying to me when I can't do that. There are some long target > names > which make the first column very wide, while OTOH I can't see the full > commands > for them. Basically I have to pull the kate window so it covers all my > two > screens, only then the command column becomes wide enough. > I would much prefer if I could simply drag them manually to the width I > want > (initially they should be set to something reasonable automatically of > course). > A quick first try was not good enough, but I could invest a bit more > time. > Ok, or would you object to that ? Have no opinion on that. > > For those small things, should I go the whole branch and merge request > route ? I think a merge request makes the final details better to get right. Greetings Christoph > > Thanks > Alex