Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Inconsistencies when changing orientation #17

Open
MikErk opened this issue Feb 27, 2015 · 4 comments
Open

Inconsistencies when changing orientation #17

MikErk opened this issue Feb 27, 2015 · 4 comments

Comments

@MikErk
Copy link

MikErk commented Feb 27, 2015

Hello,

I am just starting to get some insights into sailfish programming and found a bug relating to landscape/portrait orientation. During pdf viewing when I change the orientation it switches to a different page number. In my case I tested with a 120-page PDF: In landscape mode when I am look at page 2, then in portrait mode his already on page 5/6. The gap increases when I go further down the document. I am guessing that it might be that somehow you only look at the current scroller position when the orientation is changed. I have looked in some source but I wasn't able to find the function where this is handled.

I posted a bug info already on together.jolla: https://together.jolla.com/question/83724/portraitlandscape-mode-inconsistent-in-sailfish-office/

@anandrkris
Copy link

I experienced this issue today. I was reading a PDF document and navigated to in Appendix (no bookmarks on PDF sadly 😢 ) in portrait mode and had to change orientation as there was lot of text. And the page focus was gone! I hate to download Android apps so would be grateful for fix soon.
Also, am curious why Jolla-made apps are released only with OS updates. Can't we have updates through harbor store?

@anandrkris
Copy link

@dcaliste - Tagging - Just In case you're interested to fix 😄

@sebix
Copy link

sebix commented Sep 20, 2015

Isn't this issue fixed now with #25 merged? Can't observe it with 1.1.7.28

@dcaliste
Copy link
Contributor

Yes, it should be OK now, but when testing my patch, I've observed similar strange behaviours that I cannot reproduce later. So hopefully I would say, it's closed, but it's up to the maintainer to decide !

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants