Remove move and center window rules, combine them as new position rule #12518
+20
−24
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Another PR addressing the issues highlighted in my comment here: #12434 (reply in thread)
This is a fix for the
moveandcenterrules not overriding each other. Currently, because these were stored as separate effects, the center rule was always taking priority because the application of that effect was happening later inlistener_mapWindow.This PR removes both of those rules and replaces them with a new one named
position, which is a better descriptor of the effect IMO. Thepositionrule accepts the same arguments as move, but also accepts "center" as a option. With this change, whicheverpositionrule is defined last wins.If you would like, I can modify this PR to leave the
centerandmoverules intact for backwards compatibility, but I figured users will be forced to update their configs with recent changes anyway so a big breaking change may be acceptable at the moment. Please point me to any follow-up items that would need to be taken care of elsewhere, such as updates to documentation or tests.And lastly, regarding the comment I linked above, this PR still does not fix a potential bug where workspace rules from the focused workspace are being applied to windows launched on another workspace via a rule passed to the exec dispatcher.