I am working on a WPF & .Net application that has many WPFbuttons that I must click. When I attempt to click the button objects, sometimes it works right away, more often it waits several seconds then proceeds, and sometimes it waits up to 3 minutes before my application proceeds.
There is a workaround (or rather, a kludge) by specifying object.Click 5,5 thereby setting QTP to click 5 pixel in from the top-left corner. This works, but why doesn't a regular click work on the program?
Further investigating, QTP says that by default micNoCoordinate is used when no coordinates are specified (this is supposed to click the center of the object).
I have tried micNoCoordinate as well as 5,5 and even 0,0 and while micNoCoordinate is a bit slower than specifying a real coordinate, all of these methods work much, much faster than not specifying a coordinate at all.
What is really going on when QTP "clicks" an object? I don't see a cursor on the button during a plain click event. Why is a plain .Click event so different than specifying a coordinate or even just using micNoCoordinate??
EDIT: Specifically, I'm quite interested in how the click events themselves differ when using coordinates vs. when not using coordinates. What type of click event is being simulated in each scenario?
By default, if no X/Y coordinates are provided, the object's .Click method will click directly in the center of the object. This is the same as specifying "micNoCoordinate" for both coordinates. You have correctly identified the functionality.
Make sure you have all of the latest patches relating to .NET and WPF (QTPNET_00062 and possibly others).
Related
I'm sort-of just nit picking here, but maybe there's a simple solution which will save me some time.
When I'm drawing my Winforms GUI in the designer, controls snap to certain points. I can align the baseline of the text of one control to that of another, I can align the left and/or top of one control to another, etc. This is all great.
What's great too, is that the controls snap to other controls spaced with their margins. This means that if I'm making a vertical array of TextBoxes, then I can have them equidistant in my GUI - it looks less messy.
However not everything snaps correctly, or at all. Say I have put in my TextBoxes and now I wish to reduce the width of my form so that there is no white space between the edges of the TextBoxes and the edge of the form. Additionally, I want the distance between the edge of the TextBoxes and the edge of the Form to be the same on the left as it is on the right. If I drag the right edge of the form to the left, towards the TextBoxes it will not snap. I'm left with either calculations to work out what the width should be, or a juggling act to gradually reduce the width until the TextBox is snapping to both the left of the right.
I'm not saying this process is particularly difficult or time consuming. It's just that if it were to snap, the whole process would be infinitely easier.
Is there a built-in option in VS2010, or perhaps an extension? Or maybe I'm just doing it wrong in the first place?
The snap lines in the designer work perfectly when moving or resizing any of the built-in controls. The only time that they don't work is when you are resizing the form itself.
I agree that it would be extremely convenient to have snap lines here, as well. I wish I knew of a way to enable this. But unfortunately, I don't believe that there is one.
The workarounds are either to calculate the proper size mathematically, or guess at resizing the form then check your work by dragging one of the controls (and using the snap lines that appear). I go through the same "juggling act" that you describe on an unfortunately regular basis.
Whenever a control needs to be positioned so that it "snaps" to a form edge I usually move (or resize) the controls to the correct size first, and then change the controls "Anchor" property of those controls to be anchored to the corresponding form edge (even if the form itself won't be allowed to resize).
That way whenever I resize the form, the controls position relative to that form remains the same, simply resizing or moving the control as required (depending on the Anchor property chosen).
I completely agree that the ability to "snap" the form to controls when resizing the form would be extremely useful, but its normally possible to work-around using the anchor property in this way - the times when its doesn't work (such as when a form consists entirely of a column of text-boxes is a fixed height), I'm afraid you need to resort to calculations, but I find that most of my dialogs are resizable.
Ive been googling this alot but can't find any working solution. Im using Shell Integration Library to cerate custom Window Chrome and I also need drop shadows for this window. Some say setting GlassFrameThickness to -1 do the trick but its not working for me. And Jeremiah Morrill suggested using DwmExtendFrameIntoClientArea. Ive tried that and it works, sort of. The shadows looks ok but when the window is shown it is first shown as a glass-frame and then a second later the real content is superimposed. This causes to much flickering for me. Is there any way to get rid of this flickering or is there any better way using only Shell Integration Library?
I had a similar problem where it wouldn't display any shadow when using a custom chrome. It worked fine when using the glass.
I got a shadow by setting GlassFrameThickness="0,0,0,1". The glass didn't show and I got the shadow.
Be warned, the shadow is a simple RECT to Windows, so if you have a funky chrome with transparencies it may look funny.
Also if you support the maximized state be aware the you'll need to set a margin on your top-level panel element of "8,8,8,8" when in maximized mode. All other modes should be "0,0,0,0".
To alimbada, the WindowStyle defaults to None on custom chrome.
The Shell Integration Library uses DwmExtendFrameIntoClientArea, plus handling of several Window messages to get the effects. If you're using the full window rect (i.e. no rounded corners) then setting it to (0,0,0,1) as suggested will give you the drop shadows as you want. If you want to simulate the rounded corners of Aero, then setting it to (8,8,8,8) will extend the glass frame enough that the corners also stay rounded, and then you're responsible for not drawing over the corners of the rectangle. The shape of the drop shadow doesn't change regardless of the glass frame thickness.
The flashing you're seeing when setting the thickness to -1 still exists even when not fully extending the glass frame. What's happening is the window is getting shown while the content is still compositing. What you can do is simplify the default UI so it displays quicker (or you can stage it, bringing in a simnple background first and then replacing it with something usable), or you can create and show the window off-screen, and then move it to the desired start location once the content has been rendered. The easy way to detect when it's probably ready is to invoke a DispatchTimer with Priority=Loaded. That should only get invoked once the basic first layout has been completed.
I have a WPF window that contains a fancy image with roughly 200 controls (derived from buttons), all of which use one of my 5 templates (paths, shadow effects, etc). Agreed, it is a heavy window to draw. I can live with that.
My problem comes from resizing the window. Maximize/Restore take about 1-2 seconds, but manually dragging the bottom-left corner causes the system to hang for about 5-10 seconds. In that delay, the window is black & contains partial leftovers until the final result is shown. It looks amateurish and that, I can't live with.
Remote connection : using a remote account, I found that the window resize always takes 1-2 seconds, but doesn't draw the "intermediate" stages while I'm dragging the window borders. The result is as snappy as I would expect.
My conclusion is this: It's the redraws during the resize that are bottlenecks.
The inevitable question is this : how can I prevent redrawing the window until the resize is finished?
Thanks in advance for any ideas...
#Seb: I'm beginning to think WPF is
not designed for interfaces that go
beyond 2-3 controls at a time
Visual Studio 2010 and Expression Blend should be good counterexamples. Though Visual Studio sometimes freezes the bottleneck is definitely not in the WPF rendering.
#Seb: The inevitable question is this : how
can I prevent redrawing the window
until the resize is finished?
Simply set the window's content visibility to Visibility.Collapsed before the resize/maximize and make it visible afterwards. Though I think you asked the wrong question. Here is the right one
How to make my controls measure/arrange extremely fast?
And to answer it you should take a look at your code. Maybe you intensively use dependency properties in the measuring/arrange algorithm? Or maybe you picked wrong panels (e.g. Grid is slower than Canvas)? Or maybe... I stop guessing here :).
By the way, it's always better to launch your app under profiler and prove the bottleneck rather than assuming the place where it might be. Check Eqatec Profiler it's free yet powerful enough. VS 2010 also offers nice profiling features, though it's far from being free. And you may want to check WPF Performance Suite.
Hope this helps.
Let me know how this works... I am assuming that your root visual item is stretching to horizontally and vertically to fill your window with auto height/width. Get rid of the Auto height/width. On app start up set the dimensions of the root element. There is a FrameworkElements have a size changed event. Register for this on your Application.Current.MainWindow (maybe be a typo, that was from memory). Whenever this event fires, start a timer with a small interval. If you get another resize while the timer is running, ignore it and reset the timer. Once the timer fires, you now know the new size the user desires and that they have (at least for a short period) stopped resizing the window.
Hope that helps!
From Ragepotato's answer and your comment about needing to see roughly what the interface would look like while resizing, as long as you don't have your objects dynamically re-locating themselves (like a Wrap Panel) - you could take a screenshot of the window contents and fill your frame with it.
Set it to stretch both height and width, and you'd get a (slightly fuzzy) idea of what a particular size would be. It wouldn't be live while resizing, but for those few seconds that probably wouldn't matter..
Using gdk_screen_get_monitor_geometry, I can get the total area in pixels and the relative position of each monitor, even when there are two or more used as a single screen.
However, I want to get the usable area (that is, excluding panels) of each monitor. The only thing I have found is _NET_WORKAREA, but that is one giant area stretching across all monitors. Depending on the resolution and arrangement, there may be panels inside this area.
How can I get the actual usable area of each monitor? Ideally, using only Gtk/Gdk, nothing X11-specific.
The following approach is a bit convoluted, but it is what I'd use. It should be robust even when there is complex interaction between the window manager and GTK+ when a window is mapped -- for example, when some of the panels are automatically hidden.
The basic idea is to create a transparent decorationless maximized window for each screen, obtain its geometry (size and position) when it gets mapped (for example, using a map-event callback), and immediately destroy them. That gets you the usable area within each screen. You can then use your existing gdk_screen_get_monitor_geometry() approach to determine how the usable area is split between monitors, if any.
In detail:
Use gdk_display_get_default() to get the default display, then gdk_display_get_n_screens() to find out how many screens it has.
Create a new window for each screen using gtk_window_new(), moving the windows to their respective screens using gtk_window_set_screen(). Undecorate the windows using gtk_window_set_decorated(,FALSE), maximuze them using gtk_window_maximize(,TRUE), and make them transparent using gtk_window_set_opacity(,0.0). Connect the map-event signal to a callback handler (using g_signal_connect()). Show the window using gtk_widget_show().
The signal handler needs to call gtk_window_get_position() and/or gtk_window_get_size() to get the position and/or size of the newly-mapped window, and then destroy the window using gtk_widget_destroy().
Note that in practice, you only need one window. I would personally use a simple loop. I suspect that due to window manager oddities/bugs, it is much more robust to create a new window for each screen, rather than just move the same window between screens. It turns out it is easier, too, as you can use a single simple callback function to obtain the usable area for each screen.
Like I said, this is quite convoluted. On the other hand, a standard application should not care about the screen sizes; it should simply do what the user or window manager asks. Because of that, I would not be surprised if there are no better facilities to find out this information. Screen size may change at any point, for example if the user rotates their display, or changes the display resolution.
in the end I ended up using xlib directly, various "tricks" like the one suggested above ended up eventually failing in the long run often with odd corner cases and never followed the KISS principle.
The solution I used is in the X-Tile code base.
I'm designing some dialog boxes, and I'm having a hard time to fit everything. (and it has to fit on a single dialog box by design, so please don't tell me I should make two dialogs instead of one:))
I'm wondering what's the max size a dialog can have before being annoying for the end user. Of course it should't be bigger than his resolution, but are there any other boundaries to consider?
I'm trying to limit at 800x580 (so that it can display fine on a 800x600 screen without hiding the taskbar), but I expect my users to be on 1024x768 or better screen resolutions.
Is a 800x580 dialog box ok, or is it too big?
Have you considered using a tabbed layout?
Also, I believe the smallest main-stream screen resolution is 1024x600.
I'd say anything over that is too big. I try to stick below 1000x500.
I'm writing this on a netbook (ASUS) with resolution 1024 x 600. I've also noticed this is a defacto standard for most other netbooks too.
Another option: you could create a dialog that resizes itself automatically to fill the current desktop (except for the task bar).
It could also enforce a "flow" style layout for it's child controls. This would ensure the best use of the available space is made.
To get "flowing" in Windows forms you can use either the flow layout control or (for a richer interface) the WebBrowser control.
By the way, modal dialogs seem to be less popular as a way of user interaction these days. Especially large dialogs containing a lot of information/controls. This article has some good alternatives.
I think that if the user NEEDS to see all data on screen at the same time... and you can fit everything in 800x580... I think that it's a fine size.
If you know all users have bigger resolutions so don't struggle... that size is OK.
However... a way of showing lots of information and being able to edit it... could be a PropertyGrid control (an example here)... may be that could shrink a bit the form if you don't feel confortable with it being so big. Don't know if it a possibility given the needs of your client/user.
Just hope that no-one ever tries using your app on a media center running through a standard definition display. That's 640x480 for NTSC. I've suffered this problem with quite a few apps.
Whatever your pixel by pixel size, if it takes more than a few seconds for skilled users to complete the use of your window, then it shouldn’t be a dialog. Anything longer is annoying. You’d be asking your users to do too much work that is too easy to lose (e.g., by hitting Cancel accidentally) and too hard to re-entered (e.g., between sessions). If you have so many controls that the dialog needs to be 800 by anything, then it’s too many controls. 200,000 square pixels and 40 controls is the very most you should consider for a dialog. And tabs are nature’s way of saying your dialog is too complex.
Dialogs are for entering parameters to execute a single command on one or more data objects visible in the primary window for the dialog, which is why dialogs need to be small and simple. I suspect that’s not what you’re doing. Instead, you’re using a “dialog” to represent the main data objects and carry out a major task, not a single command.
What you want is a primary window, not a dialog, with all the support necessary for the complicated task you’ve set up for the user. That includes providing a means for users to save, retrieve, and copy their work. That means a menu bar and toolbar with all the standard commands, including help. The window should absolutely be modeless, and be resizable, maximizable, and minimizable.
Primary windows should be designed to work best at the size of most (over half) of your users’ screens. 1024x768 is generally fine for today’s laptop/desktop screens, not that you should use that much space if you don’t have to. If the user’s screen is smaller, or the user for any reason resizes your window below the design size, then scrollbars should appear to allow full access to all controls and content in the form –just like any primary window. The experience on the web indicates that scrolling is not a showstopper for forms.
Beyond that, tabs may be used in a primary window to increase the number of controls on it. You said you don’t want to hear about multiple windows, but multiple windows should be used instead of tabs if the user will be comparing data across tabs/windows. You can also fit more in a given primary window size by using a compact presentation (I describe this at http://www.zuschlogin.com/?p=42), but test such an approach on your users before committing to it.