#896 Search box is broken with gnome-themes-standard 3.6

Interface (176)

Geany version: 1.22 ("Tavira")

Steps to reproduce:
- Use Adwaita theme from gnome-themes-standard 3.6 (available in Debian experimental, for example)
- Type something that does NOT appear in the file being edited to the search box

With previous theme versions, the search text would become white-on-red. With the new version, it becomes white-on-white (= unreadable).

Probably it's a bug in the theme itself (there was a major re-write of the Gtk2 version in 3.6), but I couldn't find anything wrong there, so I've filed it here.


  • Lex Trotman

    Lex Trotman - 2012-10-08

    This looks more like a theme engine bug because Geany doesn't use the theme, it sets the background red and the text white explicitly using hardcoded red & white values ui_utils.c:956

    Possibly a bug in the theme engine is overriding the explicit setting when it shouldn't but anyway GTK isn't setting what we tell it.

  • Colomban Wendling

    Apparently Adwaita started using the pixmap engine for styling entries (see http://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-themes-standard/tree/themes/Adwaita/gtk-2.0/gtkrc#n887\), so our base color override is not shown anymore. It's indeed a problem in Adwaita 3.6 and I'm afraid we can't do much about it without getting extremely theme-specific -- and even there, I'm not sure we can do that without breaking other themes. I may be wrong though, I'm not much knowledgeable about GTK theming.

    As an Adwaita 3.6-specific workaround, you might override the engine setting for "widget "*.geany-search-entry-no-match"" (in latest Git, 1.22 hard-coded the style without setting the widget's name)

  • Chris Mayo

    Chris Mayo - 2013-03-11

    Fixed for me by gnome-themes-standard-3.6.5

  • Lex Trotman

    Lex Trotman - 2013-03-11
    • status: open --> closed-fixed

Log in to post a comment.

Get latest updates about Open Source Projects, Conferences and News.

Sign up for the SourceForge newsletter:

JavaScript is required for this form.

No, thanks