A log message is not good enough. That needs to throw an exception. It's
a bug if IPD and BPD are not set IMO. Would you write test cases for all
the possible combinations after adding the exception and before fixing
the problems? I can help you there, if you like.

On 25.08.2005 08:40:22 Manuel Mall wrote:
> The safety check in addBackground is already there. This is how I 
> stumbled across it as it is triggered by one of the layout engine 
> tests.
> 
> I'll look into it as part of the whole percentage stuff I'm currently 
> doing.
> 
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 02:35 pm, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> > You are right. It seems like some calls to
> > TraitSetter.addBackground() are issued before IPD and BPD of the area
> > are set (list-block and list-item, for example). Yes, the call will
> > need to be deferred until the BPD and IPD have been set on the area.
> > A safety check in addBackground() will be a very good idea, too. You
> > or me? :-)
> >
> > On 25.08.2005 05:14:04 Manuel Mall wrote:
> > > When setting a relative background position the positioning is
> > > relative to the size of the area the background is applied to.
> > > Currently the position calculation is done when the area is
> > > created, i.e. when the background trait is set. However, at that
> > > point in time fop may not know the bpd and ipd of the area in
> > > question. Therefore the calculated positioning will be wrong. Am I
> > > correct in saying that the logic needs to be changed to do that
> > > calculation (or even set the background trait) when the layout is
> > > completed for that area and not when the area is created in the
> > > layout process?
> >
> > Jeremias Maerki
> Manuel



Jeremias Maerki

Reply via email to