On Sep 1, 2010, at 18:42, kathryn aaker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Max Carlson <[email protected]> wrote: > On 9/1/10 8:22 AM, P T Withington wrote: > This fixes the reported bug, but I'm still not convinced that the math is > completely correct. Unless I misunderstand completely, I feel the following > two assertions should also hold in the supplied test case: > > assertEquals((yellowview.x+redview.x)*blueview.xscale, > redview.getAttributeRelative('x', blueview), "red x in blue") > > There's a bug in that one - you're not taking the blueview.x into account. > This works: > assertEquals((yellowview.x+redview.x)*blueview.xscale + (blueview.x), > redview.getAttributeRelative('x', blueview), "red x in blue") > > This is starting to make my head spin, but I don't think, in this case, that > the blue view's x matters, since that's its X relative to it's own parent, > and we're just trying to compare the inner (red) to the outer (blue) views. > > K Well the general contract of getAttributeRelative is to say "what value of x would you have to set in the reference view to be equal to the current value in the source view. So I think my tests are valid, even if they are not required for your application. Which is why I suggested they could be a separate bug.
