Difference between revisions of "Lua:Class:CheckBox"

From Cheat Engine
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Tanisha)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''CheckBox Class''' (Inheritance ButtonControl->WinControl->Control->Component->Object)
+
Currently in AT-SPI there is a discrepancy. The user has a sligne gesture to change to the opposite state depending on the current state but the actions define in specific end states (check or unckeck). Is there a good reason for this? If the AT wants to give the user the same experience as the direct user then it must look at the current state and use the correct action to give a similar toggle effect.Following that logic you should expose both Check and UnCheck in the indeterminate state and let the AT do all the work. Yuk   how did we get here?If there is a good use case for an action that ends in an unknown state as determined by current state and application logic then Toggle might do as you suggest. To my mind toggle indicates change to the other state of 2 states so isn't right for tri state logic where Cycle, Change, Alter. NextState, might be better suitedHey how about
The Checkbox is a visual component that lets the user click it and change state between checked, unchecked, and if possible, grayed
 
 
 
 
 
'''createCheckBox(owner)'''
 
Creates a CheckBox class object which belongs to the given owner. Owner can be any object inherited from WinControl
 
 
 
'''
 
checkbox_getAllowGrayed(CheckBox)'''
 
Gets the AllowGrayed property
 
 
 
 
 
'''checkbox_setAllowGrayed(CheckBox, boolean)'''  -- it is same as '''control_setEnabled(control, ~ boolean)''' 
 
Sets the AllowGrayed property
 
 
 
 
 
'''checkbox_getState(checkbox)'''
 
Gets the current state of the checkbox
 
  0=Unchecked
 
  1=Checked
 
  2=Grayed
 
 
 
'''
 
checkbox_setState(checkbox, state)'''
 
Sets the state of the checkbox
 
   0=Unchecked
 
  1=Checked
 
  2=Grayed
 
 
 
 
 
checkbox_onChange(checkbox, function)
 
Sets an OnChange event for the checkbox that gets triggered when the state has been changed (by the user of programatically)
 
  function (sender)
 
 
 
 
 
<pre>
 
Example:
 
 
 
local form = createForm( true );
 
 
 
local checkBoxes = {};
 
checkBoxes[1] = createCheckBox( form );
 
checkBoxes[2] = createCheckBox( form );
 
checkBoxes[3] = createCheckBox( form );
 
checkBoxes[4] = createCheckBox( form );
 
checkBoxes[5] = createCheckBox( form );
 
 
 
for x = 1, #checkBoxes do
 
    control_setCaption( checkBoxes[x], "This is checkbox " .. tostring( x ) );
 
    control_setPosition( checkBoxes[x], 10, x * 20 )
 
end
 
 
 
checkbox_setState(checkboxes[1], 0)    -- Sets checkboxes[1] to unchecked state.
 
checkbox_setState(checkboxes[2], 1)    -- Sets checkboxes[2] to checked state.
 
checkbox_setState(checkboxes[3], 2)    -- checkboxes[3] is grayed out.
 
 
 
if checkbox_getState(checkboxes[4]) then  -- if checkboxes[4] is checked then the function returns true otherwise false.
 
  print "true"
 
else
 
  print "false"
 
end
 
</pre>
 

Revision as of 20:57, 12 May 2012

Currently in AT-SPI there is a discrepancy. The user has a sligne gesture to change to the opposite state depending on the current state but the actions define in specific end states (check or unckeck). Is there a good reason for this? If the AT wants to give the user the same experience as the direct user then it must look at the current state and use the correct action to give a similar toggle effect.Following that logic you should expose both Check and UnCheck in the indeterminate state and let the AT do all the work. Yuk how did we get here?If there is a good use case for an action that ends in an unknown state as determined by current state and application logic then Toggle might do as you suggest. To my mind toggle indicates change to the other state of 2 states so isn't right for tri state logic where Cycle, Change, Alter. NextState, might be better suitedHey how about