#789 [wxSmith] Sizer and wxAUI bugs

[bluehazzard]

This is a bug report from this forum thread:
http://forums.codeblocks.org/index.php/topic,23011.msg156400.html#msg156400

1) Panel names must be unique
2) AuiManager::UnInit() has to be added to the destructor of the window code
3) Adding sizer and sub elements will cause wrong code to be generated

[bluehazzard]

This is a big patch is a fix for problem 1) and 2)

1) is only one line.
2) Adds the code generation for the destructor code. I think this was intended from the begining, but never implemented.

[bluehazzard]

related: https://sourceforge.net/p/codeblocks/tickets/665/

[ollydbg]

Aha, about the problem 2), I also mention this bug in the wx's discussion, see the last post here: Re: assert GetEventHandler()== this failed

[ollydbg]

I basically read the patch, and I think it is good! Thanks.

[Teodor Petrov]

Would it be possible to separate this in one patch per problem?

[Teodor Petrov]

Codefd is not a good name...

[bluehazzard]

Would it be possible to separate this in one patch per problem?

of course, patch for 1) is attached

Codefd is not a good name...
CodeGeneratorForDestructor better, or CodefDestructor or CodeForDestructor?

[Teodor Petrov]

The original Codef I think means code format or something similar.

About the last patch:
1. please remove the useless spaces
2. can you add a comment what this new code does?

[ollydbg]

I think "Codef" means "Code format", like OBF said.

[bluehazzard]

So CodeFormatDestructor, or CodeFDestructor ? I do not know...

[bluehazzard]

Ok, here are the two patches reworked

[Teodor Petrov]

Patch _1 Looks fine. I'd use operator+=, but it doesn't matter.

Patch _2:
1. About the name, I'd choose DestructorCodeF, IMO
2. Why are there 3 versions of CodeDestructorFormat? It looks too much to me. You call it in a single place...
3. If you have no intention to fix the TODOs then remove them
4. Don't call GetCoderContext more than once in a function, I don't know if it is really expencive, but this is sloppy and hard to read.

p.s. I have very very vague idea how wxSmith works...

[bluehazzard]

About the name, I'd choose DestructorCodeF, IMO

i agree...

Why are there 3 versions of CodeDestructorFormat? It looks too much to me. You call it in a single place...

The target function is CodeDestructorF(wxsCoderContext* Context,const wxChar* Fmt,...) for convenience there are the two functions

CodeDestructorF(const wxChar* Fmt,...)
CodeDestructorF(const wxString &Fmt,...)

so you can omit one parameter and use "" or wxString(). I do not think they are too mutch. Beside the existing Codef function has the same signatures and i think they should be symmetrical...

If you have no intention to fix the TODOs then remove them

I am not sure what to do... The whole code is without any call to a codeblocks specific function. I think logging an error is good for finding the error fast, but i do not like to introduce codeblock specific code in a so clean environment. I think 1. is more important than 2...

Don't call GetCoderContext more than once in a function, I don't know if it is really expencive, but this is sloppy and hard to read.

its an inline function so the cost is zero. But anyway i changed it, because i agree with this

[Miguel Gimenez]

For the record, part 1 was fixed by [r11707]. Part 2 seems pending.