Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix wrong offset calculation #286

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 18, 2019
Merged

Fix wrong offset calculation #286

merged 1 commit into from
Apr 18, 2019

Conversation

Sija
Copy link
Contributor

@Sija Sija commented Jul 19, 2018

Fixes #223
Fixes #275

@Sija
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sija commented Feb 27, 2019

I'm sorry to say but IIRC this PR solves one bug and introduces other(s)... :(

@miromannino
Copy link
Owner

Thank you! I will merge for now to the upcoming one, in case I see any problems I'll fix it later

@miromannino miromannino reopened this Apr 18, 2019
@miromannino miromannino merged commit a6a8085 into miromannino:master Apr 18, 2019
cgunther added a commit to cgunther/Justified-Gallery that referenced this pull request Apr 12, 2023
PR miromannino#286 attempted to fix a doubled margin between rows, however in my
use case, while it solved that, it increased the images per row, thereby
reducing the height of each image. Especially with a number of very
wide, but short, images, this led each row to be significantly shorter
then before miromannino#286.

I believe the source of that problem is that after miromannino#286, we'd buffer the
next entry, add it's aspect ratio in the `buildingRow`, then determine
if the `buildingRow` (while accounting for the aspect ratio a second
time) was below the `rowHeight` to flush the row, thereby treating
`rowHeight` like a maximum height.

It seems the intention prior to miromannino#286 was to tentatively add the next
entry's aspect ratio, without buffering it in `buildingRow` yet, to
determine if that's push us below the `rowHeight`, and if so, flush the
row before that next entry, thereby treating the `rowHeight` like a
minimum height.

In other words, before miromannino#286, we'd flush the row BEFORE adding the entry
that would push us below the configured `rowHeight`, but after miromannino#286,
we'd flush the row AFTER adding the entry that pushed us below the
`rowHeight`.

The root source of the doubled margin was flushing a row with no
buffered entries (hence increasing the offset without actually rendering
a row). Given an empty buffered entries (start of a new row), if the
entry being analyzed had an aspect ratio that'd make it's height less
than the configured `rowHeight`, we'd flush the row BEFORE buffering the
entry, thereby flushing an empty row.

Now, we only attempt to flush the row if we have at least one buffered
entry.

This should still fix miromannino#223 and miromannino#275 without introducing the side-effects
described above.
cgunther added a commit to cgunther/Justified-Gallery that referenced this pull request Apr 12, 2023
PR miromannino#286 attempted to fix a doubled margin between rows, however in my
use case, while it solved that, it increased the images per row, thereby
reducing the height of each image. Especially with a number of very
wide, but short, images, this led each row to be significantly shorter
then before miromannino#286.

I believe the source of that problem is that after miromannino#286, we'd buffer the
next entry, add it's aspect ratio in the `buildingRow`, then determine
if the `buildingRow` (while accounting for the aspect ratio a second
time) was below the `rowHeight` to flush the row, thereby treating
`rowHeight` like a maximum height.

It seems the intention prior to miromannino#286 was to tentatively add the next
entry's aspect ratio, without buffering it in `buildingRow` yet, to
determine if that'd push us below the `rowHeight`, and if so, flush the
row before that next entry, thereby treating the `rowHeight` like a
minimum height.

In other words, before miromannino#286, we'd flush the row BEFORE adding the entry
that would push us below the configured `rowHeight`, but after miromannino#286,
we'd flush the row AFTER adding the entry that pushed us below the
`rowHeight`.

The root source of the doubled margin was flushing a row with no
buffered entries (hence increasing the offset without actually rendering
a row). Given an empty buffered entries (start of a new row), if the
entry being analyzed had an aspect ratio that'd make it's height less
than the configured `rowHeight`, we'd flush the row BEFORE buffering the
entry, thereby flushing an empty row.

Now, we only attempt to flush the row if we have at least one buffered
entry.

This should still fix miromannino#223 and miromannino#275 without introducing the side-effects
described above.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
2 participants