Skip to content

Conversation

@HeikoKlare
Copy link
Contributor

Several places in the computations of preferred sizes of controls used commercial rounding instead of rounding up in pixel/point calculations. This change further adapts additional places to ensure that the calculated size will be large enough and and subsequent point-to-pixel calculation when setting the bounds according the computations does not lead to smaller results.

This is a follow up to:

I did not find any visual differences yet, so consider this a unification/cleanup to ensure that every conversion involved in computeSize() calculations rounds up.

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Nov 3, 2025

Test Results

  118 files  + 7    118 suites  +7   17m 41s ⏱️ + 2m 35s
4 651 tests +56  4 634 ✅ +72  17 💤 +3  0 ❌  - 6 
  330 runs  +56    326 ✅ +53   4 💤 +3  0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit 4a58a39. ± Comparison against base commit 9119357.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

@HeikoKlare HeikoKlare marked this pull request as ready for review November 3, 2025 11:27
Several places in the computations of preferred sizes of controls used
commercial rounding instead of rounding up in pixel/point calculations.
This change further adapts additional places to ensure that the
calculated size will be large enough and and subsequent point-to-pixel
calculation when setting the bounds according the computations does not
lead to smaller results.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Adapt further places to round up when computing control size

1 participant