https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=416019

Ahab Greybeard <ahab.greybe...@hotmail.co.uk> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |ahab.greybe...@hotmail.co.u
                   |                            |k
             Status|REPORTED                    |CONFIRMED
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #4 from Ahab Greybeard <ahab.greybe...@hotmail.co.uk> ---
I can confirm this for the Jan 08 4.3.0 prealpha appimage (git dc7d037)

For a similar vector shape created in kita, when dragging an edge to curve it,
the curve stays attached to the cursor.

For 'reproducer' and 'reproducer2', the curve lags behind the cursor when
dragging the curve.

Also, when dragging the curve then releasing the cursor, artifacts are produced
which are part of the vector layer and cannot be removed by any layer turn
off/on. The can be 'swept away' by dragging the curve so that it writes over
them or by saving the file and reopening.

The curve lagging the cursor is associated with the curve moving in the
opposite direction when the cursor is released.

For 'reproducer', reducing the size of the viewBox values changes the scale of
the shape and also the amount by which the curve lags the cursor during
dragging.
If the viewBox values are adjusted to make them much larger then the curve
leads the cursor when dragging it and no artifacts are produced.
If the viewBox values are set to viewBox="0 0 575 850" then there is no lag or
lead of the curve with respect to the cursor.

For reproducer2, if you manually remove the transform from the .svg file and
then Import it, the shape does not have the curve lagging/leading the cursor
when being dragged out and also none of the problems noted in the initial
description. (It's also smaller and at the top left of the layer.) The
transform in the original reproducer2 seems to be a combined translation and
scale.
I suspect that the viewBox size for reproducer2 was 'just right' (for whatever
reason) but that the scaling components of the transform had their own effect.

The relationship between viewBox values, path definition values and any
transform effects seems to be a serious and delicate one.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.

Reply via email to