I would like to know if there is a way to manipulate an App's UI live while running?
I am not a designer and I have many problems sometimes regarding matching colours etc.
The next problem is that anytime I would like to change e.g. the colour of a control I have to quit the App then go to VS2012, apply my changes, build and execute it again to see simple changes.
I know that I see any changes in the designer but I have to see the resulting screen to get an impression of the whole.
Is there a way to achieve this?
Add a secret keypress while Debug flag is set, that raises a form and allows you to select controls and expose a property sheet for them. Be a bit of work to get right, and a good stick of code even using reflection. Might be better off with a storyboard type app to do your designing.
Unlike styles in WPF which can be dynamically adjusted (which made this type of run-time adjustment simple), there isn't as elegant of a solution for Windows Store apps. Ideally, you'd have all of your UI and colors, etc. defined in XAML files and not settable through other means (as it becomes a longer term maintenance issue).
I'd suggest just adding enough test data and configuration so that you can see the look and feel of the pages (with colors, etc.) at design-time. Blend and Visual Studio are now quite good at showing a very reasonable near final rendering of the elements of the application. It's generally not too difficult to do anymore.
One thing I've done in the past was to make a single page/form that contained all of the styles and controls in a large scroll viewer. Then, we set it so it was configurable to the be the first thing to run. The tweak/build cycle was pretty fast, and the results were still very manageable.
Related
During an interview, the company was asking about my use of custom controls in WPF. I have found with all of the power of the WPF way of creating a control (datatemplate, control template, styles,triggers etc... ) that having to write a custom control that overrides the OnRender method really hasn't been necessary. Later found out that most of their development has been in Winforms.
If coming at a control from a 100% WPF direction, how often is it necessary to write a customcontrol with OnRender overrides? The Winform approach is really not making use of the WPF composition technique of creating controls and it seemed like a question not based on much WPF knowledge.
Thanks
Harold
Good question (though a bit opinion-based) and no answers? Fixing.
If you are winforms-experienced developer, then thinking winform-way is still acceptable in wpf. For a while. This is where you may find self making mostly custom controls (containing xaml and code, or even without xaml). But the more you learn, the less you need that. Many many tasks can be completed in wpf simply because it is very flexibly. Every entity consist of something what can be customized: templates, styles, converters, behaviors or even plain event handling.
You can start with custom control and then find out what you don't really need it (or it can be downgraded to simple restyling).
When I started making first serious wpf project, there were 3 custom controls and they are still. Here is why.
Outlined TextBlock. Simply because you need custom OnRender (to build and draw geometry for outline).
Animated content. To apply transition animation when changing content. I could almost make it without custom control, but there is a problem - calculating animations logic when transitioning left-to-right, right-to-left, up-down or down-up. It's waaaay easy to have in one custom control. But possible with UserControl and view, not as pretty still.
Graph. Simply because it's too complicated to be presented with Visual and because of performance using gdi+ gives millions of points (hundered thousands figures) to be drawn within ms.
Conclusion: it's good and useful, though way less than it was in winforms (where you simply had no other option).
We're using a custom skin throughout our application. Recently, some folks here decided they don't like the way the groupcontrol looks. By bolding the caption and setting the groupControl's LookAndFeel.UseWindowsXPTheme = true, though, I make them happy.
Is there any way to set these properties in the skin (or elsewhere) so we developers don't need to manually set the group box control every time we use it? I loaded up our skin.xml file in the skin editor but nothing in that gui seemed obvious to me. From the documentation I've read, it sounds as though I need to make the changes on a pixel-by-pixel basis, more or less.
Having these properties set at design time would be nice.
We have a fair amount (dozens?) of groupControls already out there, so going back and modifying these two properties would be something of a pain.
Thanks in advance for any help.
As far as I know, there is no way to set these properties at design time.
I am currently working on this big project (a GUI to control hardware) that was written in C# with .NET 3.5. Now the next revision of hardware will be coming, and some of the changes are such that some of the controls that we had before are not needed, and some new controls need to be added too. Since the changes are huge, it would require almost a month to go through every control and put a condition to make it visible or not.
I was wondering if there is any other way to tackle this problem easily other than manually conditioning the whole project. Thanks in advance.
If you can make the decision to make visible or invisible based on some attribute of the control, such as its name, or tag, you could write a method that could walk a window's controls, and programmatically hide the ones you wanted hidden. For controls like a label you might key on the text of the label.
Written correctly the method could be written so that it is re-entrant so that for controls that contain other controls, the method would call itself for each of the current controls children.
The hardest part about this would be to determine how to decide programmatically make the on or off decision.
If that's not possible, another solution might be to write a small app that would read the code and list the controls you want to examine, allowing you to make a decision based on your knowledge of the application. The app then could make the changes necessary to set an attribute on the control in code so that its hidden when the code is compiled.
You usually have to design for these kinds of things, and by the sounds of it, it isn't designed for this.
but quite often, this kind changes appears quite large, but often isn't THAT big of a deal.
Im currently trying to create an application that will require 10+ different "pages" with different content and controls, and i need to switch back and forth between them on particular events.
What ive been doing, is just creating all the different sections in grids, and setting their visibility to collapsed, and then when i need to show them, just switch out the visible grid to the new one.
This has several drawbacks, im assuming its very poor from a coding standpoint, and this pretty much dis-allows me from using the designer at all. (i have no idea what performance implications it has, either)
on top of that, every time i switch to the new page, i need to reset all the components (textbox's etc) to their default states, as they dont get reset by becoming invisible :P
on to my question: i need a way to map out all the different pages, provide visually attractive transitions between them, and be able to use a designer to create them (and i dont mean designing it somewhere and then just copying the xaml)
I had looked around, and ran into SketchFlow and it seemed like the perfect solution, i could fade between pages and map everything on a flow chart easily, and then i realized it was only for app prototypes and i couldnt actually compile it as a normal application... and i needed to inherit from a custom Window class aswell.
is there something out there that allows me to do this? or how can i code this to work properly?
note: this ABSOLUTELY needs to stay within one window. i cant venture out into having 10+ different windows that pop up every time i need to change to something. as this happens very frequently
Split the separate sections in individual user controls. This would allow you to design each of them easily. Then on your form use code to create and load a new instance of particular user control that represents the section you need to show, and when transitioning, load the new section and unload the current. this would allow your form to stay relatively lightweight.
An alternative is to create a navigation application and split your sections into separate XAML view and use the standard navigation service to switch between them.
WPF Navigation Overview
Creating Navigation Applications video tutorial
You might wanna convert your "Pages" to usercontrols and use some transitions like mentioned in the below link to switch between controls
http://www.tanguay.info/web/index.php?pg=codeExamples&id=280
for more on using transitions look here
http://www.japf.fr/2009/04/adding-transitions-to-a-mvvm-based-dialog/
or
http://www.japf.fr/2008/07/8/comment-page-1/
My workshop has recently switched to Subversion from SourceSafe, freeing us from automatic locks. This led to concurrent editing of the Forms, which is wonderful. But when multiple developers commit their changes, the code files created by the designer (all the files named TheFormName.designer.cs) cause conflicts which are very difficult to resolve.
As far as I can tell, this is because the code generated by the designer is heavily re-arranged whenever the user modifies it, no matter how little the actual change really did.
How do I make these conflicts easier to resolve?
Is there some way to tell the designer to modify the code less?
How do you, the experienced C# teams, deal with concurrent modification of a Form?
Here are some things to try:
Make things more modular. Use components like User Controls etc. to split forms into multiple, smaller physical files.
Use presentation layer design patterns like MVP to move code out of views and into standard POCO classes.
Recent versions of SVN allow you to take hard locks - use this to avoid complex merge scenarios.
Hope that helps.
I'm pretty sure there is no silver bullet for this problem as the designer stomps all over the designer.cs.
All I can suggest is to minimise the use of the designer. Personally I only hook to events in code and only use the designer only for initialisation and positioning. As such it isn't too hard to fathom differences in a changeset ("oh, someone has added a button", "oh, someone has changed how it looks slightly").
Yep, Designer's random rearranging sure is irritating. Does Microsoft use their own tools? Does Microsoft look at what they check into version-control? It boggles the mind.
Our team's "solution" is to hand-edit the Designer files after we're done editing them, to put things back to where they were, so that the text-based diff is readable, and so concurrent changes can be merged sanely. Luckily, most of Visual Studio's rearranging is simple-minded, so this works.
Sadly, we've found that this step is necessary to verify correctness -- we've found cases where Designer silently removes things that are needed, leading to broken code. So this step has to be done in order to work around whatever data-destroying bugs lurk inside. Sigh.
Since Microsoft has a poor track record of fixing its bugs, the only solution may be to improve Mono's WinForms Designer so that it's ready for prime time.
I'm not familiar with C# or the Windows Form Designer, but looking at some designer.cs files I could find online they don't have a particularly complicated structure.
What parts of it are being re-arranged? I guess it's mostly the order of the properties in the InitializeComponent() method that's jumbled up?
If that's the case, you might be able to write a simple script that re-orders those lines alphabetically, say (especially if you never edit these files manually anyway), and use that as a pre-commit hook script in Subversion.
Um, right... scratch that. The big red box at the bottom of that section says you're not supposed to modify transactions in hook scripts. But you might be able to find another way to run that script somewhere between the designer.cs file being changed and it being committed.
Edit:
Actually, given scraimer's comment on this:
Total hack, but in the worst case, just before a merge, I could sort BOTH files, and make the merge simply a line-by-line affair...
Can't you let Subversion set an external merge program? I've been using KDiff3, which can run a preprocessor command before doing diffs or merges, so you could automate that process.
It's true that the designer sometimes messes up the order of the controls in the code, which causes the file to look very different compared to a previous version. This indeed is a problem if the file is under version control.
However, I found that the designer works quite reliably even in very large forms and user-controls if you follow some rules, and in those rare case where it does not, I have a easy way to force the designer into arranging the controls in the "correct" order again.
My rules:
The comment at the top of InitializeComponent() in every .designer.cs says: do not modify the contents of this method with the code editor. Well, if you know what you're doing, then it's absolutely no problem to edit this file manually, because this is what you need to do. Just make sure you have a backup.
Typically, when you create a form or UC, you add some controls here and there and move them around until you find a nice arrangement. But in the .designer.cs file, the controls are ordered by the order of their creation, and not by your logic how they belong together.
After finishing the creation of the form or UC, I reorder both the declarations (at the bottom of the file) and instantiations of the controls and their adding to the respective parent control (both in InitializeComponent()) until they are in the order that I want them to have. This makes it much easier to find them if you have to change a property of a control in the code.
And it also makes it easier for version control, because you may easily see what part of your form or UC was changed just by seeing the place (rather towards top or bottom of the file?) of the change in a file comparison view.
But changing the order in these 2 sections does not automatically change the order of all the parametrization code that comes after the instantiation part in InitializeComponent(). This will be done when you execute the solution to the OP's problem, which is described next.
If you work with rule #2, then you need to do the same finishing work that you need to do when you encounter the problem that the OP describes:
You have to force the designer to arrange controls in the order that they have in the declaration and instantiation.
This can be done in a quite simple way (which worked for me in 99% of the cases so far):
Save all files of the form or UC
open the designer view
move one of the controls (e.g. by selecting it and hitting 1x left arrow key)
optional: look at the .designer.cs file and/or save the form or UC
move the control back to have your intended design (e.g. by hitting 1x right arrow key)
save the form or UC
The designer will rewrite the whole .designer.cs file and your controls should now be in the "correct" order.
There are rare cases where this does not help. These include DataGridViewRows in embedded DataGridViews and embedded UserControls. In these cases I additionally do similar finishing work which includes adding and removing a button:
Save all files of the form or UC
open the designer view
add a button anywhere in the form or UC
optional: look at the .designer.cs file and/or save the form or UC
remove this button again
save the form or UC
The only way I know of to truely avoid this problem when using a merge style source control system such as subversion is to hand code the forms and not use the designer. Obviously, this would not be good because hand coding these forms can take a while.
The reason this happens is because the control properties are serialized by the designer in the order they are dropped on the form. Cutting and pasting can effect this order as well as moving a control so that it has a new parent (such as moving a control on to a panel when it was previously directly on the form).
I had this problem on a large project and had to imploy a rather ugly approach - diff the designer.cs files against the check-in target revision and manually merge them using a merge tool. This isn't ideal, but it is the only way I see this working consistently with svn or another merge style source control tool.
The other option would be to use a lock approach with source control, as others have pointed out, but this comes with unpleasant side effects as well.