[Qgis-developer] Reliable way to determine a groupIndex in the legend tree

[Duarte Carreira]

An unchecked layer is never visible... that would really confuse users...

-----Mensagem original-----
De: Bernhard Ströbl [mailto:bernhard.stroebl at jena.de] 
Enviada: sexta-feira, 11 de Outubro de 2013 11:25
Para: qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org
Assunto: Re: [Qgis-developer] Reliable way to determine a groupIndex in the legend tree

this was the original proposal:

Am 11.10.2013 11:22, schrieb Sandro Santilli:
 > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 09:13:03AM +0000, Duarte Carreira wrote:
 >> The group checkbox, imho, should *not always* switch children on/off. You should have a modifier to get this as a secondary behavior, like pressing the ctrl key when (un)checking the group checkbox. The primary behavior of the group switch should be to make the children invisible or visible, regardless of the children's visibility being on or off.

I understand this in the way I wrote in my last message. You would make the children visible/unvisible "regardless of the children's visibility being on or off". This results in the two cases I described.
Well, to be honest there are two more cases, but they are not critical :-)
3) group is checked and layer ist checked
4) group is unchecked and layer is uncheched

 >>
 >> In the primary behavior when the parent is turned OFF, the children are not drawn but retain their checked or uncheck status.
 >> If you use the secondary behavior then unchecking the parent will uncheck the children. Same would apply when checking the parent on.
 >
 > Agreed, sounds like a sensible behavior to me.

Am 11.10.2013 12:09, schrieb Sandro Santilli:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:02:08PM +0200, Bernhard Ströbl wrote:
>
>> We would have these two cases:
>> 1) Group is checked and although layer is unchecked it is visible
>
> I don't think this case exists.

Why not? You check/uncheck a group and the layers are visible/invisible depending on the group status not their individual status.

> Are you saying you _want_ this to be possible ?
> Because for me an unchecked layer should _never_ be shown.

Same for me, _plus_ a checked layer should _always_ be shown
>
>> 2) Group is unchecked and although layer is checked it is not visible
>
> This is a possible case, IMHO, which calls for the "half-checked" widget.
>
> --strk;
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET Mail Security, version of virus 
> signature database 8904 (20131011) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET Mail Security.
> http://www.eset.com
>
>



__________ Information from ESET Mail Security, version of virus signature database 8904 (20131011) __________

The message was checked by ESET Mail Security.
http://www.eset.com