search

akshaydharphale / ganttproject

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/ganttproject
0 stars 0 forks source link

Ability to zoom out more, to get >1year in the viewport #15

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Copied from the bug tracker on SourceForge:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1156015&group_id=72728
&atid=535427

The maximum zoom level is not sufficient. It would be nice to be
able to zoom enough to see a full year on the screen.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by dbarashev on 2 Dec 2008 at 12:38

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
And months, quarters could be in the bottom row of the timeline

Original comment by dbarashev on 4 Dec 2008 at 11:40

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I'd like the years split in months rather than weeks so the long projects could 
be 
easier to follow.
It would be really good to be able to choose weeks or months depending on the 
length 
of the project

Original comment by mfama...@gmail.com on 20 May 2010 at 1:46

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Since we need also to zoom out further for our project we made a *quick and 
dirty* 
patch for this.

It adds 3 extra zoom steps, with Month/Week timeline. The months get a 
lowercase 
letter for odd years and uppercase for even years. I added comments in the 
patch to 
indicate where you could change this behaviour.

This solves our problem for now, hopefully it will help other as well.
But we are also really looking forward for a proper fix for this issue.

Original comment by maarten....@gmail.com on 25 May 2010 at 8:23

Attachments:

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
This issue was closed by revision c74bcda6f1.

Original comment by maarten....@gmail.com on 14 Oct 2010 at 8:49

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by dbarashev on 15 Oct 2010 at 12:01

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
It seems to me that zooming in 2.10 and in Praha build 210 is still not 
possible for more than 2 years (on a 2000x1000 pxl monitor). Has this 25yr 
function been reverted?

Why have a limit below total project size for zoom out at all? Yes, labelling 
may become ugly in some cases. But that would still be less frustrating than 
being blocked with nothing or patchwork from exported files.

Original comment by Hoffm...@CPPM.In2p3.Fr on 13 Jan 2011 at 11:27

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
It was published in Praha 306. And who told about 25yr? 

Labeling and chart grid will *surely* become ugly in all cases, and your tasks 
may skew, and most likely you won't be able to see anything but mess and 
clutter anyway. For instance, weekend bars are already annoying with the 
current implementation. Implementing it in a way which doesn't produce too much 
clutter is by far non-trivial problem.

Original comment by dbarashev on 13 Jan 2011 at 11:46

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Yes, but I am preparing a report, and the first comment on the chart, before 
any comment on the content, was "please put months on the scales". 

You should not worry about weekends when looking at a year. They are relevant 
on the very short term only. I would simply remove weekend bars, if the 
displayed width of two days becomes smaller than one pixel. (Otherwise they 
would be longer than two days on the display anyway, which is more confusing 
than having none at all.)

25 yrs were stated in revision 403d15d512cccef1ef9d7ddaf536fa59b3003f68

Original comment by Hoffm...@CPPM.In2p3.Fr on 14 Jan 2011 at 12:24

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
> You should not worry about weekends when looking at a year. They are relevant 
on the very short term only.

Exactly. And that's where the tricky part of the implementation starts.

Original comment by dbarashev on 14 Jan 2011 at 12:40

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
> 25 yrs were stated in revision 403d15d512cccef1ef9d7ddaf536fa59b3003f68

This revision has never made it into the default branch (ie added to the 
application). It was/is an try out which did not fulfill all of our demands.

You *could* try to compile it yourself, and see if it is usable for exporting a 
graph. But I thought the exporting/printing functionalities got broken (big 
time) by this (or prior) issue_15 revisions.

Original comment by maarten....@gmail.com on 14 Jan 2011 at 8:57

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I tried the head version from CVS. If you would like a complete feedback 
report, let me know. This ticket is probably not the right place for that.

Regarding zooming possibilities, it is still very limiting to have a maximum of 
50 weeks on my 1280 pixel screen. After the maximum zoom, it still reacts on 
the mouse wheel, but the effect is that it jumps to a higher resolution (two 
steps possible)!??

Annoying or at least surprising is also the effect that a new zoom factor also 
leads to the chart being reset to the begin of the project!

As for the zoom, there are some scales (zoom factors), where the chart is 
exactly sticking to the mouse when clicked, as expected. In other scales 
however it goes faster or slower than the mouse. 
In some situation, there is a latency between mouse movements and display. 
After the mouse control has been done, the chart still updates a couple of 
times (repaint() calls?). Are you sure you are using the Swing event model 
correctly. Earlier repaints should simply be skipped, if new repaint()s have 
come in.

Original comment by Hoffm...@CPPM.In2p3.Fr on 15 Jan 2011 at 10:10

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
> I tried the head version from CVS

Did you mean "Mercurial" ?

> it is still very limiting to have a maximum of 50 weeks on my 1280 pixel 
screen

It is 5 years on my 1680px display. Are you sure that you checked out the right 
version?

Original comment by dbarashev on 15 Jan 2011 at 11:08

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
>> I tried the head version from CVS

> Did you mean "Mercurial" ?

I was surprised that you mix them up, indeed. No I meant CVS, as I followed the 
"unstable" link on
 http://www.ganttproject.biz/participate
which lead to
 http://code.google.com/p/ganttproject/wiki/GPHeadForDevelopers
which points to CVS. Is that description out of date???

> It is 5 years on my 1680px display. Are you sure that you checked out the 
right version?

Five years is a more reasonable time period (if you reason in USSR economic 
plans ;-), but a decade would be nice. More than a decade is barely plannable 
and may serve as a limit. 

But why restrict to any number? It might still be one day someone likes to draw 
a Gantt chart for evolution, geological development or a biological model can 
be described like that. Then a zoom to a larger scale might come in handy.

Original comment by Hoffm...@CPPM.In2p3.Fr on 16 Jan 2011 at 8:37

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I thought that I said that *good* implementation of the large zoom scales is by 
far not trivial. If you feel brave enough, go ahead, clone the repository, 
implement and send us a changelist. Until that we have lots of other important 
stuff to do.

Original comment by dbarashev on 16 Jan 2011 at 12:38

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I feel brave enough to implement a zoom, but not brave enough to waste my time 
with outdated code or start from incomplete or conflicting implementations. I 
would like to obtain code
 a) which has a working implementation of zoom, which is working also for printing and
 b) containing the latest (coherent) modifications.

If for b), it is correct to follow 
http://code.google.com/p/ganttproject/source/checkout (selecting the "default" 
tag, which seems to yield Praha 306), then unfortunately a) is not true. I hope 
you understand that starting with debugging someone else's code (two files 
without any source code comment I scanned up to now) is a much bigger hurdle 
than bringing in my own ideas.

It looks to me like somebody is still working in the same place, and I should 
wait until that work is finished. Can you please comment on that? 

Also, if the CVS code is outdated, why does it allow to specify hours, as 
opposed to days in Praha/Mercurial? Is the sub-day scheduling a move forward or 
backward in development???

Original comment by Hoffm...@CPPM.In2p3.Fr on 17 Jan 2011 at 6:26

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Yes, somebody is still working. Yes, you should wait until the work is 
finished. Yes, Praha is *alpha version* which I said a number of times. Yes, 
alpha-quality software surely has bugs. Thanks for finding them, and please be 
patient and wait until we fix them.

Anything else that I need to confirm?

Original comment by dbarashev on 17 Jan 2011 at 6:31

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Issue 189 has been merged into this issue.

Original comment by dbarashev on 9 Feb 2011 at 8:20

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
With the new timeline up and running, this bug can be closed

Original comment by maarten....@gmail.com on 4 Aug 2011 at 10:02

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by dbarashev on 4 Aug 2011 at 10:11

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
> Anything else that I need to confirm?

Yes, please confirm that following 
http://code.google.com/p/ganttproject/source/checkout is the correct way to 
feel free to test your latest developments!

Thanks.

Original comment by Hoffm...@CPPM.In2p3.Fr on 10 Aug 2011 at 4:59

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
It is the right way to checkout, but with respect to testing, _FeelFreeToTest_ 
means that there is public build where the problem is fixed (the explanation is 
unfortunately not visible when you view the issue but it appears if you try to 
edit it and click "Status" field). It is the last available build, in our case 
beta1: 
http://ganttproject.blogspot.com/2011/07/ganttproject-praha-beta1-is-out.html 
(although it was available in more earlier alpha builds too).

Original comment by dbarashev on 10 Aug 2011 at 5:34

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by dbarashev on 22 Sep 2014 at 12:19