[ItemView] Bug in headerview

[lauranger]

Hi
I found a bug in the handling of column removal by headerview.
I found also the code error that give that mishandling.
The case :
3 columns, say A, B, C.
Move column C to first place. -> C,A,B.
Then remove column A -> Boom. Normally should get C,B

the current code :

for (int l = logicalLast; l >= logicalFirst; --l) {
            int visual = visualIndices.at(l);
            int size = sections.at(visual + 1).position - sections.at(visual).position;
            for (int v = 0; v < sections.count(); ++v) {
                if (logicalIndex(v) > l)
                    --(logicalIndices[v]);
                if (v > visual) {
                    sections[v].position -= size;
                    int logical = logicalIndex(v);
                    --(visualIndices[logical]);
                }
            }
            sections.remove(visual);
            hiddenSectionSize.remove(l);
 
            logicalIndices.remove(visual);
            visualIndices.remove(l);

for (int l = logicalLast; l >= logicalFirst; --l) {
            int visual = visualIndices.at(l);
            int size = sections.at(visual + 1).position - sections.at(visual).position;
            for (int v = 0; v < sections.count(); ++v) {
                if (logicalIndex(v) > l)
                    --(logicalIndices[v]);
                if (v > visual) {
                    sections[v].position -= size;
                    int logical = logicalIndex(v);
                    --(visualIndices[logical]);
                }
            }
            sections.remove(visual);
            hiddenSectionSize.remove(l);

            logicalIndices.remove(visual);
            visualIndices.remove(l);

To copy to clipboard, switch view to plain text mode 

line 9/10 use value that line 7 may have changed.
it should be (80% sure ) :

for (int l = logicalLast; l >= logicalFirst; --l) {
            int visual = visualIndices.at(l);
            int size = sections.at(visual + 1).position - sections.at(visual).position;
            for (int v = 0; v < sections.count(); ++v) {
                int logical = logicalIndex(v);
                if (logicalIndex(v) > l)
                    --(logicalIndices[v]);
                if (v > visual) {
                    sections[v].position -= size;
                    --(visualIndices[logical]);
                }
            }
            sections.remove(visual);
            hiddenSectionSize.remove(l);
 
            logicalIndices.remove(visual);
            visualIndices.remove(l);

for (int l = logicalLast; l >= logicalFirst; --l) {
            int visual = visualIndices.at(l);
            int size = sections.at(visual + 1).position - sections.at(visual).position;
            for (int v = 0; v < sections.count(); ++v) {
                int logical = logicalIndex(v);
                if (logicalIndex(v) > l)
                    --(logicalIndices[v]);
                if (v > visual) {
                    sections[v].position -= size;
                    --(visualIndices[logical]);
                }
            }
            sections.remove(visual);
            hiddenSectionSize.remove(l);

            logicalIndices.remove(visual);
            visualIndices.remove(l);

To copy to clipboard, switch view to plain text mode 

What is the quickest way to get an official fix for that ?

I'm trying to recollect how to recompile Qt here
(I have already done it for 4.1.2)

Thanks.

[jpn]

What is the quickest way to get an official fix for that ?

"Open a new Task" at Task Tracker.

[gfunk]

Ick... this code is so hard to read, I'm not surprised it has a bug. Nested loops using vectors like fixed-size arrays... ugh. Granted, organizing the header section probably isn't a UI operation that needs to be done too often, probably just on init, I imagine they did it for performance reasons for other view operations.

[lauranger]

I agree with you. We can consider it too "clever" for the frequency it is to be called.
I guess calculating just the visual indexes and then mapping back the logical indexes
would have suffice.