lmi
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lmi] Header pagination PR


From: Vadim Zeitlin
Subject: Re: [lmi] Header pagination PR
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 19:39:07 +0200

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 17:26:35 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:

GC> On 2018-09-18 14:26, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
GC> [...]
GC> >   https://github.com/vadz/lmi/pull/96
GC> 
GC> wxWidgets and wxPdfDoc upgraded; PR 91 and PR 96 cherry-picked.
GC> wxWidgets build is perfectly clean.
GC> wxPdfDoc build is successful: a separate email notes ignorable warnings.
GC> lmi build is perfectly clean.
GC> nychthemeral_test is clean; GUI test is clean.
GC> 
GC> Manually test that a default PDF illustration of each ledger type
GC> can be created:
GC> 
GC>   for z in sample2* do  # casual shell pseudocode
GC> 
GC>   File | New | Illustration
GC>     change "Policy" to $z
GC>   OK
GC>   File | Print to PDF
GC> 
GC> ...succeeds for "sample2naic", but fails thus for all others:
GC> 
GC>   [copied by hand from an un-copyable-from 'wine' messagebox]
GC>   Assertion 'dc().GetTextExtent(i).x <= rect.width()' failed.
GC>   [wx_table_generator.cpp : 250]

 Yes, this is the same one I'm seeing. It's quite strange that you can see
it too now whereas you couldn't before, as I definitely see it both before
and after my changes.

 FWIW the difference is also relatively important for me: it's 121 for the
actual extent and 110 for the rectangle width IIRC.

GC> >  I've done some minimal testing and the illustrations seem to come out
GC> > correctly here, but, again, my testing was quite cursory. I should also
GC> > mention that I'm still using a local hack disabling the assert checking 
for
GC> > GetTextExtent() in wx_table_generator::output_super_header() as otherwise 
I
GC> > can't generate any illustrations at all because I'm running into it.
GC> 
GC> That's the first thing I'll look at.

 All I can say is that I really see no other way around this assert than
shortening the super header. The only thing puzzling me here is the
apparently sporadic nature of this assert when normally it should be
perfectly reproducible. I'm really not sure what's going on here...

VZ


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]