Hi Laurent,

I would like to give it a try and fix the thickness issue in the qet 0.90 code. Do you maybe have a hint for me, what file(s) of the source code may be responsible for this issue?

Thanks
Tom

Follow-up:

I found a simple way, to implement a transparent background that is automatically inherited to an svg export.
qet 0.90: qetdiagrameditor.cpp: 361-362

// Diagram::background_color = checked ? Qt::darkGray : Qt::white;
Diagram::background_color = checked ? Qt::transparent : Qt::white;

I just commented the original line 361 out and replaced "Qt::darkGray" by "Qt::transparent" in line 362. Now, when I use the new white/gray background toggle button on a folio and select the gray backgound, I get a transparent background.

Nice
Tom

P.S.: Here is an example.

Hi Laurent,

I am sorry. I did not know and now I understand better. So, I hope Joshua's wife is getting better soon and that you are recovering as soon and as best as possible. I am crossing my fingers for you all.

Best wishes to France,
Tom

Hi Laurent,

to be honest, I did not check the nightly 0.100 version. You see, I was curious about the 0.100 version, but did not want to compile it on a regular basis, so I installed the ppa and upgraded qet from 0.80 to 0.100. I spent some time playing with the 0.100 version and got the feeling that the 0.100 is too much "work in progress" for me. So I rolled back to 0.80 and as a compromise downloaded and installed the source of 0.90.

Anyhow, your screenshots show me that you are already aware of that issue and have it addressed. Excellent. I am looking forward to the release of 0.100.

Regards
Tom

Dear All,

While playing around with qet 0.80 and 0.90, I noted a possible regression that you may want to address in 0.100.

  • I created an arrow as user collection element with a tip using line thickness "thin" (see ElementEditor.png)

  • When placed on a folio in 0.80 the arrow tip is correctly included (see QET080.png)

  • However, if the same file is displayed with 0.90, the tip is drawn with thickness "normal" (see QET090.png)

It seems, that somehow the line thickness of the tip is ignored in 0.90.

Regards
Tom

@plc-user and scorpio810

Thanks for your quick reply.
Yes #1, it is not an issue but just a nice-to-have. And I can manually or assisted by a script remove the background color, if needed.
Yes #2, I already tried to modify the background color of the folio in the source code of 0.90. However, it turned out to be not as simple as replacing it by Qt::transparent :-). Unfortunately, I am neither very experienced in c++ nor in Qt.
Yes #3, I am running Linux Mint Mate 21.3 and are familiar with scripts and advanced editors as e.g. kate. However, for such small modifications I still prefer vim :-).

Good night
Tom

Dear All,

While searching for a high quality schematic editor, I hit upon qet yesterday. I installed 0.8, created a small user collection of 25 elements and a small schematic. I was really impressed of what I found. Great job.

When I exported my small schematic to an svg file, I noticed the "9/16" bounding box issue that will be fixed as I read in 0.10. I also noticed that the white drawing background is correctly included with the exported svg file. However, such a background can turn out to be inconvenient, if an svg export is supposed to be included e.g. on a LibreOffice impress presentation slide with different background color. In this case the white background of the svg file will cut out a large white rectangle on the presentation slide. Of course, I can set the fill-opacity in the exported svg file manually to "0",

<g fill="#ffffff" fill-opacity="1" stroke="none" transform="matrix(0.75,0,0,0.75,-159.727,-160.5)"
font-family="Ubuntu" font-size="10" font-weight="400" font-style="normal">

however, it would be more convenient, if the background color could be turned off (set to transparent) by means of the export dialog. I have checked (compiled) 0.9 and installed also the nightly 0.10, but did not find a corresponding option. So, is it possible to add this feature to the new revision 0.10?

Regards
Tom