Merge lp://qastaging/~azzar1/unity/fix-815032 into lp://qastaging/unity

Proposed by Andrea Azzarone
Status: Merged
Approved by: Neil J. Patel
Approved revision: no longer in the source branch.
Merged at revision: 1327
Proposed branch: lp://qastaging/~azzar1/unity/fix-815032
Merge into: lp://qastaging/unity
Diff against target: 97 lines (+25/-1)
4 files modified
plugins/unityshell/src/Launcher.cpp (+11/-1)
plugins/unityshell/src/Launcher.h (+2/-0)
plugins/unityshell/src/unityshell.cpp (+4/-0)
plugins/unityshell/unityshell.xml.in (+8/-0)
To merge this branch: bzr merge lp://qastaging/~azzar1/unity/fix-815032
Reviewer Review Type Date Requested Status
Neil J. Patel (community) Approve
Marco Trevisan (Treviño) Approve
Marco Biscaro (community) Approve
Review via email: mp+69855@code.qastaging.launchpad.net

Description of the change

Add a ccsm option to change launcher opacity. the default value is 0.6667, about 0xAA (current default value).

To post a comment you must log in.
Revision history for this message
Marco Biscaro (marcobiscaro2112) wrote :

Everything looks good.

Just one comment: an option in cssm with default value 0.6667 looks strange for me.

I think it would be better if the value was between 0 and 255 (with default value = 170). Then, the code in UnityScreen::optionChanged would be something like:

case UnityshellOptions::LauncherOpacity:
  launcher->SetBackgroundAlpha(optionGetLauncherOpacity() / 255.0);
  break;

review: Approve
Revision history for this message
Andrea Azzarone (azzar1) wrote :

> Everything looks good.
>
> Just one comment: an option in cssm with default value 0.6667 looks strange
> for me.
>
> I think it would be better if the value was between 0 and 255 (with default
> value = 170). Then, the code in UnityScreen::optionChanged would be something
> like:
>
> case UnityshellOptions::LauncherOpacity:
> launcher->SetBackgroundAlpha(optionGetLauncherOpacity() / 255.0);
> break;

I have your same opinion, but panel opacity has the same scale of values. So it may appear inconsistent.

Revision history for this message
Marco Trevisan (Treviño) (3v1n0) wrote :

It seems fine to me.

review: Approve
Revision history for this message
Neil J. Patel (njpatel) wrote :

Sweet!

review: Approve

Preview Diff

[H/L] Next/Prev Comment, [J/K] Next/Prev File, [N/P] Next/Prev Hunk
The diff is not available at this time. You can reload the page or download it.