add on-output window rule match property#3474
Open
adeci wants to merge 4 commits intoniri-wm:mainfrom
Open
Conversation
a8f3848 to
6c409e4
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes #2600
This adds an on-output match property to window rules, so you can apply different rules to windows depending on which monitor they're on. It matches by connector name, like "DP-1", or make/model/serial, same style as output config blocks.
Motivation
I use a Framework 13 laptop with a 32" external monitor and want different window sizing per display.
A specific example:
Per-output layout blocks get you part of the way there but they apply to all windows on that output, not specific ones.
Here's a snippet of what my
config.kdllooks like now with these things applied:Notes
Circular dependency guard
Like discussed in #2600, on-output and open-on-output in the same rule would create a circular dependency so we'd need to know the target output to evaluate the rule, but the rule changes the target output. So this is handled with:
I think this implementation is sensible, I would appreciate any feedback / help with this here!
Changes