317659 - [UI] : Default width of Account Manager window/panel too small on GTK2 making buttons "Advanced" and "Browse" cropped

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Thunderbird :: Account Manager, defect)

Description

[Vincent]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050920 Firefox/1.0.7
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050920 Firefox/1.0.7

The "server settings" options for each of my account has its window size too small by default, making two buttons ("Advanced" and "Browse" cropped).

This is 1.5RC1. Tried to reproduce the bug with nightlies (20th Nov and 24th Nov) but they would not even start. The error was :
INTERNAL ERROR on Browser End: Could not get the JVM manager
System error?:: Success

This is not a regression : this also occurred on 1.0.7 but since no one apparently reported this problem (I searched several times with the Advanced search), I am filing this bug.

I am attaching a screenshot to show the problem.

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Open the Account Manager
2. Click on "Server settings" for any account


Actual Results:  
The "Advanced" and "Browse" buttons are cropped as the panel is too small.

Expected Results:  
The panel/window should have been larger.

This is RHEL WS 3.0 with gtk2-2.2.4-15

Comment 1

[Vincent]

Attachment: Screenshot showing the problem

Comment 2

[Vincent]

Here is the build information : version 1.5 (20051025)

Comment 3

[Vincent]

Any news on this issue?

Comment 4

[Henry E. Thorpe]

How does one change the width of the "Account Settings" dialog box?  I can't find it in the .css or .xul files...

Comment 5

[Henry E. Thorpe]

(In reply to comment #4)
Never mind.  Looks like it's defined in:

mozilla/mail/locales/en-US/chrome/messenger/AccountManager.dtd

quote:
    XUL/FE DEVELOPERS: DO NOT MODIFY THIS VALUE. It represents the correct size of
    this window for en-US. -->
<!ENTITY accountManager.size "width: 55em; height: 44em;"> 

Now, how to change this in one of the end-user's config files?

Comment 6

[Vincent]

Thanks for the update. FYI, I upgraded to 1.5 via the Automatic update feature and can confirm it still happens.

Comment 8

[Patrick]

Confirming because of the dupe

Comment 9

[Nick Howitt]

From comment 13 in bug 321695, I no longer see this in 2.0.0.9, WinXP.

Comment 10

[Vincent]

I confirm the issue is still there on 2.0.0.9. This is RHEL WS4 w/ gtk2-2.4.13-22.

Comment 11

[Magnus Melin [:mkmelin]]

I'll take this, still an issue on linux. 
Wayne, can you confirm it's not a problem on windows trunk builds?

Comment 12

[Wayne Mery (:wsmwk)]

Attachment: composition & addressing top border missing

don't see problem as described in windows.
but see the attached.

Comment 13

[Wayne Mery (:wsmwk)]

comment 12 is from 2.0. On trunk the border is there, but at a "non-standard" distance from the border above it.

Comment 14

[Magnus Melin [:mkmelin]]

On linux trunk, the borders are totally missing atm- not sure if there's a bug for that... 

Comment 15

[Wayne Mery (:wsmwk)]

bug 357723 is another non-linux width/display issue

Comment 17

[Phil Lacy]

confirm this on windows classic type desktop. same with composition & addressing as well as 'disk space'  I think comment 12 is showing the xp desktop settings.
I can post pics to if needed.

Comment 18

[Phil Lacy]

This is a problem in TB2 also.  Looks bad.  I'd recommend to put the default port lable below the port or else the value of default port below the label.

<!ENTITY accountManager.size "width: 55em; height: 44em;"> 

Window does show ok if changed to 59 em wide:
<!ENTITY accountManager.size "width: 59em; height: 44em;">

Comment 19

[Phil Lacy]

Attachment: fixes account manager running off right of panel

I get best look with moving the 'default: <port> below the port:[ ] textbox in server settings and adding 2 em to fix the 'return receipts' page. I was in error above it was 'return receipts' not 'disk space' 

Adding my patch.

Comment 20

[Phil Lacy]

Attachment: view of patch submitted

Here's a new look at the fixed layout of AM
Someone should change this to a windows os problem too.

Comment 21

[Magnus Melin [:mkmelin]]

Comment on attachment 355201 [details] [diff] [review]
fixes account manager running off right of panel

Sorry for the delay.

Hm, in bug 326076 people felt the width should be in ch, and the width should be 20ch + 70ch. That's not at all enough on my system though - the "Default port" is outside the screen with that. 26ch / 86ch seems best on linux.

Even with your patch, the signature position dropdown is a bit cut of for me.

However, this won't work for news server...

(Since this is shared code, the suite dtd should have been updated too.)

Comment 22

[Magnus Melin [:mkmelin]]

Attachment: screenshot with port on a new row

Whatever I tried, it get's too wide with default port on the side - so here's what it would look like with port on a new row. What do people think? (This is also width 26ch 86ch)

Comment 23

[Phil Lacy]

I have no patch to check on a windows with classic desktop setup but having the port underneath is ok with me.

Comment 24

[Magnus Melin [:mkmelin]]

Attachment: proposed fix

Doesn't seem like we would find a single suitable value for all platforms. This looks good on linux, can't say for others...

Comment 25

[Bryan Clark (DevTools PM) [:clarkbw]]

Comment on attachment 359095 [details] [diff] [review]
proposed fix

If you're going to upgrade to using ch for the width you probably want to use ex for the height.  An ex is the height of the letter 'x' in the font, em isn't really a height size as much as a width size.

I'd never heard of a ch before this bug.

Comment 26

[[e-mail]]

(In reply to comment #25)
> I'd never heard of a ch before this bug.
Blame whoever it was who made CSS use em as a height size...

Comment 27

[[e-mail]]

Comment on attachment 359095 [details] [diff] [review]
proposed fix

>+<!ENTITY accountManager.size "width: 70ch; height: 50em;">
>+<!ENTITY macAccountManager.size "width: 70ch; height: 52em;">
>+<!ENTITY unixAccountManager.size "width: 86ch; height: 50em;">
Bah, the whole reason of using ch/em was to avoid needing different sizes...

>+<!ENTITY accountTree.width   "width: 26ch;">
>+<!ENTITY unixAccountTree.width "width: 26ch;">
Were these supposed to be different too?

Can you provide appropriate screenshots demonstrating what happens if you try to make them all the same size?

>+      <row align="center">
You should hide the whole row for movemail, rather than each inner element.

Comment 28

[Karsten Düsterloh]

Basically (since we did the similar fight for preferences a while ago) I'd like to know if there is *any* recommendation *anywhere* on the size of such dialogs?
Every now and then we're modifying the sizes to accommodate yet another overflowing panel...

Taking into account that os window framing and different widget markup (eg. spacers/splitters/grippies/whatever) don't actually allow for one width/height setting on all platforms, can't we just set the dialog size to a fixed 95% of some small screen layout like VGA (640x480 -> 608x456) or 95% SVGA (800x600 -> 760*570) and be done with it? And say "whatever panel you do, make sure it fits into this size we chose so that it will be fully visible in the worst surroundings, eg. legacy Windows safe mode"?

(Actually, I've no idea why one would force settings into little crowded windows anyway, if not for that reason, especially with rich UI clients like our Mojiri...)

Comment 29

[Magnus Melin [:mkmelin]]

(In reply to comment #27)
> (From update of attachment 359095 [details] [diff] [review])
> >+<!ENTITY accountManager.size "width: 70ch; height: 50em;">
> >+<!ENTITY macAccountManager.size "width: 70ch; height: 52em;">
> >+<!ENTITY unixAccountManager.size "width: 86ch; height: 50em;">
> Bah, the whole reason of using ch/em was to avoid needing different sizes...

Yes :(

> >+<!ENTITY accountTree.width   "width: 26ch;">
> >+<!ENTITY unixAccountTree.width "width: 26ch;">
> Were these supposed to be different too?

Yes, seems the suite file didn't get my latest update.

> Can you provide appropriate screenshots demonstrating what happens if you try
> to make them all the same size?

Coming up.

Re comment 28: if the width isn't limited suitably, some elements get a lot wider than they need to, and it looks a bit odd. (E.g. the folder pickers.) But sure, a little extra space might not hurt.

Comment 30

[Magnus Melin [:mkmelin]]

Attachment: screenshot width 20ch - looks crammed

This is with 20ch (80 ch total) - looks crammed.

Comment 31

[Magnus Melin [:mkmelin]]

Attachment: proposed fix, v2

Someone would have to check what values other platforms need... height: 86ex; is almost identical to our current height - only a few pixels higher.

Comment 32

[Magnus Melin [:mkmelin]]

Attachment: screenshot with port on a new row (correct version)

Whops, the earlier (first) screenshot wasn't with the correct left column width.

Comment 33

[Phil Lacy]

Attachment: view of latest patch

This is worse then original. the left side is too narrow and the right side is more clipped then before.
windows xp classic desktop settings.

Comment 34

[Magnus Melin [:mkmelin]]

In the latest patch i set the win/mac width from the discussion in bug 326076 - that may have been only mac. 

Can you figure out a good width for windows? And in particular, does it look good on windows with the same widths as *nix?

Comment 35

[Phil Lacy]

Attachment: windows XP AM Pane with the critical vertical sizing

this is height 95ex

Comment 36

[Phil Lacy]

Attachment: windows XP AM Pane with the critical horizontal sizing

better check this in other platforms it has the critical horizontal size.
Final for win XP
We need 26ch in the tree for width
<!ENTITY accountManager.size "width: 90ch; height: 95ex;">
<!ENTITY accountTree.width "width: 26ch;">

Comment 37

[Magnus Melin [:mkmelin]]

(In reply to comment #36)
> Final for win XP
> We need 26ch in the tree for width
> <!ENTITY accountManager.size "width: 90ch; height: 95ex;">
> <!ENTITY accountTree.width "width: 26ch;">

This is fine for linux too - it's a bit higher than necessary but not disturbingly so. Can someone check if it's ok on mac? Maybe we can get one size for all platforms after all.

Comment 38

[Bryan Clark (DevTools PM) [:clarkbw]]

Attachment: screenshot of the account manager running on the mac

here's a screenshot of this running on the mac.

I made the following changes to the sizes to get it to look right.
<!ENTITY macAccountManager.size "width: 88ch; height: 94ex;">

And I upped this size so the tree had a better width
<!ENTITY accountTree.width "width: 26ch;">

Not sure if others saw this, but after building on the mac (and this could be my lack of experience here) but I got several XML parse errors.  I had to add in an additional #endif in the end for both places; that could be the wrong solution, but it got it to work.

#ifdef XP_MACOSX
    <vbox  style="&accountTree.width;">
#else
#ifdef XP_UNIX
    <vbox style="&unixAccountTree.width;">
#else
    <vbox style="&accountTree.width;">
#endif
#endif

Comment 39

[Phil Lacy]

comment #38 Please confirm the horz setting on the 'return receipt' pane. That had the horiz interference problem after the port was changed on the other window.
I can check on the 94 ex height but will wait to see what Bryan says about the return receipt pane.

Comment 40

[Magnus Melin [:mkmelin]]

Attachment: proposed fix, v3

I realized the current height is exactly 600px, at least on my system. We probably shouldn't go over 600px as some people use that for various reasons - visual disabilities, small screen devices etc... (Though i think bug 416263 needs some other approach completely.) (86ex is 600px for me)

This patch uses the same widths/heights for all platforms. 

+<!ENTITY accountManager.size "width: 88ch; height: 86ex;">
+<!ENTITY accountTree.width "width: 26ch;">

Please try it out on windows/mac.

Comment 41

[Phil Lacy]

Attachment: doesn't work

crops off bottom selector on windows

Comment 42

[Phil Lacy]

Attachment: doesn't work

crops off rt border.

Comment 43

[[e-mail]]

(In reply to comment #25)
> If you're going to upgrade to using ch for the width you probably want to use
> ex for the height.
Sorry, I overtrimmed this. Thanks to the wonders of the CSS specification, a CSS em is actually a height unit, not a width unit, and so we should keep the height in CSS em and only change the width (to CSS ch, which iirc is about 1en).

Comment 44

[[e-mail]]

Comment on attachment 361062 [details] [diff] [review]
proposed fix, v3

>+<!ENTITY accountManager.size "width: 88ch; height: 86ex;">
>+<!ENTITY accountTree.width "width: 26ch;">
For me on Windows the widths need to be bigger (96ch and 31ch respectively). I don't have the port on its own line but it seems to require a height of 50em.
My Linux VM is set up for 800x600 so it won't actually open the account manager to a height of 50em but the widths seem OK.

Comment 45

[Phil Lacy]

how come we don't make it a user-adjustable window that is saved on exit?

Comment 46

[Magnus Melin [:mkmelin]]

Attachment: proposed fix, v4

Thx for testing! This patch is for

+<!ENTITY accountManager.size "width: 96ch; height: 50em;">
+<!ENTITY accountTree.width "width: 31ch;">

... which should be enough for everyone. I'll attach yet another screenshot. It's now wide enough that we don't need to move the port to a row of its own.

Comment 47

[Magnus Melin [:mkmelin]]

Attachment: screenshot - proposed fix v4

Comment 48

[Magnus Melin [:mkmelin]]

We probably could make the size user-adjustable but we need to keep the window usable for people with small resolutions, and we still would need a good default width - so I don't see a lot of benefit in doing it.

Comment 49

[Phil Lacy]

WFM

Comment 50

[Bryan Clark (DevTools PM) [:clarkbw]]

This looks good on the mac

Comment 51

[[e-mail]]

(In reply to comment #46)
> It's now wide enough that we don't need to move the port to a row of its own.
Oh... well in that case I need 97ch wide, but only 47em high.

Comment 52

[Magnus Melin [:mkmelin]]

Attachment: proposed fix, v5

Made it one em wider, now 97em. I didn't change the height, or is there an argument for doing that?

Comment 53

[Magnus Melin [:mkmelin]]

97ch of course.

Comment 54

[[e-mail]]

(In reply to comment #52)
> I didn't change the height, or is there an argument for doing that?
Well, 50em gives me an overall window height of 575 pixels (including OS chrome) which is actually a little on the large size for an 800x600 screen, as my taskbar is 28 pixels tall. 47em would reduce it to a much more reasonable 542 pixels. This is using the Windows Classic theme; things would be worse in Luna.

Comment 55

[Magnus Melin [:mkmelin]]

With h 47em the dialog is starting to look too compressed imo. Can I interest you in h 49em, which should make it around 565px for you?

Comment 56

[[e-mail]]

(In reply to comment #55)
> With h 47em the dialog is starting to look too compressed imo. Can I interest
> you in h 49em, which should make it around 565px for you?
I'd say 49em is, if anything, one pixel too large. But I can live with that ;-)

Comment 57

[Magnus Melin [:mkmelin]]

Attachment: proposed fix, v6

h 49em

Comment 58

[Magnus Melin [:mkmelin]]

jminta: r ping

Comment 59

[Magnus Melin [:mkmelin]]

Would like to get this in before b3 as it affects localization.

Comment 60

[Magnus Melin [:mkmelin]]

changeset:   2511:ff9168a8b87b
http://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/ff9168a8b87b

->FIXED