I am trying to create an interface where two labels share a space, similar to an html table with two columns would: there is a distance between the two and when the window is resized they both resize and stay the same size, keeping the distance between them and filling up the available space.
e.g. | 10px to edge | label1 (50%) | 5px spacing | label2 (50%) | 10px to edge |
If the window is resized the margins and the spacing should stay the same while the two labels should evenly distribute the available space between themselves.
After multiple attempts (e.g. putting them in a custom view takes care of the margins) I cannot figure out the correct layout constraints to make this happen.
I had the same problem until I read your problem. Because I read your problem, I gave myself another try:
You can resolve it by going into the storyboard. Then, you select both labels. After that, you add the following constraints:
Now the labels resize correctly. The trick here is to edit the constraints of both labels together. Otherwise the Equal Widths choice isn't available.
Related
I am working to generate pdfs, and am using xslfo for it.
So I have a table which is placed inside a block. On table I have applied a style with:
width = 100%
This sometimes cause table to stretch on sides and so its borders are not visible.
So I tried to replace it with:
width=auto
This causes some tables to shrink and they don't occupy full width of containing block.
How actually these things work?
What should be my settings so that inner table fits the containing block?
I would like to set the width of the bars to be a minimum of 12px. I would actually prefer to have a fixed width on the bars period.
As an example, when I am displaying 10 days of data, the graph looks fine, but for 30 days, it does not look good at all. Any thoughts on making this look better?
I added a horizontal scroll, but the width of the bars is automatically calculated based on the number of items in the graph, irrespective of the graph width. Is there any way to alter this behavior?
Screen capture: https://share.getcloudapp.com/yAubDN8X
Try adding [barPadding]="1" to ngx-charts-bar-vertical-2d element
<ngx-charts-bar-vertical-2d [barPadding]="1" ...>...</ngx-charts-bar-vertical-2d>
Try adding [groupPadding]="1" to ngx-charts-bar-vertical-2d element
<ngx-charts-bar-vertical-2d [groupPadding]="1" ...>...</ngx-charts-bar-vertical-2d>
as long as you minimize the padding between groups, the barWidth with grow automatically !
I am having trouble preventing the text inputs from overlapping the footer button.
The footer has been anchored to the bottom of the screen. All the elements up top (logo, title label, and 2 input boxes) all have relative constraints. I try to add a constraint between that last input and the footer button but it pushes the footer off the screen on the smaller iphone.
What do I do??
https://github.com/civilordergone/taskfort_ios
Your issue seems to be in landscape only (I ran your code), where you have, for example, 320 points of vertical space, and an image (128pt), a text label (120pt), two text fields (30 each, for 60pt in total) and a 30pt button at the bottom. Already that's 338pt used, and we haven't accounted for the vertical spacing between your objects.
There simply isn't enough vertical space for all of these items to be vertically positioned while retaining their heights, so something has to be flexible: something has to be able to be vertically shrunk/compressed. Your logo and app name (Taskfort) are two candidates.
Here are some of the changes and/or points of consideration:
An ImageView with a height and a width equality constraint will always be that size, but for your layout, it has to be able to be compressed. I removed the height & width constraints and added an Aspect Ratio constraint, so the logo keeps its aspect ratio, but can now scale. I added a relationship constraint between the logo's left side and the left side of the Taskfort label.
The image has a relationship to the top of the screen, saying it must be equal or greater (not less than) to 0. This just means "the image can't be pushed off the top", which "less than" would allow it to be. (For example, if the image is pushed off the top by -40 points, that's still "less than 20").
The image has to be allowed to be vertically compressed. There is a property for "Vertical Compression Resistance" that was 250, and is now 249. By setting it to 249, we're saying "If something has to give way, vertically, this object can be compressed." Since we defined an aspect ratio constraint, if it does get compressed vertically, it'll be reduced horizontally by a proportionate amount so as to maintain the proportions of the logo.
To prevent the text fields from overlapping, their relationships are set to "equal or greater than". Same for the Username text field to the label.
The challenge was in defining the relationship between Password and the Create Password button at the bottom. I added a constraint that says their vertical distance must be greater than or equal to 20. This has a priority of 1000 (by default), so at all times, you get 20pt or greater between those two. Without this, your password field and your button overlap.
While step 5's constraint solves the overlap problem, it creates a new one in portrait orientation, where the password is now 20pt from the button, instead of being lovely white space. To fix that, we add a second constraint between the password field and the button, and specify that the vertical distance is to be 228pt between them both. Now that creates a constraint conflict because you now have two constraints that are both trying to define the vertical relationship between the button and the text field. The 20-pt one is required, it has to be there. But the other one is just a "nice to have, if we can fit it".
So you set the priority of the new one (the 228pt) to be low, such as a Priority of 250. Then the layout engine will use the required one (must be 20 pt or greater) and then it sees the other one ("make them 228") and it tries to do that. If it can't, such as in landscape, then it doesn't do it and doesn't complain, because you have the other constraint already that provides positioning information. If you're in portrait and you have enough space such that it can also apply the low priority constraint, then it'll do that too, and your portrait layout now gets a bigger gap between top and bottom.
When testing these layouts, use the Assist Editor in Preview split-screen mode so you can see the affects of your changes without needing to run the simulator. Here's a guide on that.
Sounds like you're using an equality constraint, such as "the distance between lastInput.bottom and footer.top equals 20". Instead, try an inequality operator, such as "the distance between lastInput.bottom and footer.top is equal or less than 20".
The attributes inspector for a constraint can let you change an equality to an inequality. Alternatively, you can double-click the constraint line (the UI in the storyboard editor) to get a quick pop-up for that.
This is not exactly how my code is but for the sake of an example, I have a 3 column layout, first column being a col-md-3, and inside that I have 3 more columns, one which is col-md-1. However, because col-md-1 has a width of less than the padding (30px), the column to its right is now pushed to the second line.
to see my example, pull the divider until you are in desktop mode, and notice how the blue column is now on a separate line:
http://plnkr.co/edit/pQyjbrd7v4dWN4Ffkq9b?p=preview
Does this mean I can't have a column that small? I am coming from Bootstrap 2.x where the span1 had a width with a margin-left, so it used to work fine.
The short answer to your question is "Correct, can't have a column that small." You can't have a "1" sized column within a "3" side column for your purpose. The math is that the tiny column you're trying to display is only 2% (i.e., 8.3% of 25%) of the available page layout. On top of the Bootstrap 3 cols have a 15px left and right padding, which effectively wipes out that 2%. This is why you're seeing it wrap funny at anything less than about 1410 pixels, by my testing with your code. I don't know what you're trying to do, but the grid probably isn't the right way to do it for a so small a slice of the page.
I’m trying to put together what seems to be a simple case of two NSTextFields with dynamic width and fixed spacing in between. I cannot figure out an effective way to do so though.
I’m looking to get something like this:
The blue boxes are the NSTextFields. When more text is entered into one, it should grow and thus make the other one shrink, maintaining the lead space, trailing space and the spacing in between the fields. The first one should take the priority if both of the fields have too much text. Each field will also clearly have a maximum and a minimum possible width it can reach.
How would I go around handling this, preferably utilising IB autolayout as much as possible?
It seems to me that all of constraints you mentioned directly translate into interface builder --
First view has width >= something.
First view has width <= something
Same for Second view.
Space between views is fixed.
Second view wants to be as small as possible (have its width at 0) but this has lower lower priority than the previous constraints and lower priority than inner content size constraints.
The code I had to add to my view controller, after applying the constraints as per the ilya’s answer:
In controlTextDidChange (_controlWidthConstraint refers to the fixed width constraint of the input; it’s probably 0 by default for the second input):
// Get the new width that fits
float oldWidth = textControl.frame.size.width;
[input sizeToFit];
float controlWidth = textControl.frame.size.width;
// Don’t let the sizeToFit method modify the frame though
NSRect controlRect = textControl.frame;
controlRect.size.width = oldWidth;
textControl.frame = controlRect;
_controlWidthConstraint.constant = controlWidth;
The key lies in invalidating the intrinsicContentSize for the text field when text is input.
You can check a sample project here, to get you on the right track.