You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
When finishing the cycling, tags on the final client's screen are unselected, leaving only the client's first tag.
Relevant sections are in the exit_grabber() function (inside cyclefocus.cycle()).
Following part is supposed to restore the tags, but it does not actually handle the client's screen. A separate loop is needed to preserve the behaviour mentioned in the comment.
-- Restore previously selected tags for screen(s).-- With a given client, handle other screens first, otherwise-- the focus might be on the wrong screen.ifrestore_tag_selectedthenforsincapi.screendoifnotcors~=c.screenthenfor_,tinpairs(s.tags) dot.selected=restore_tag_selected[s][t]
endendend+ifcthen+for_,tinpairs(c.screen.tags) do+t.selected=restore_tag_selected[c.screen][t]
+end+endend
Tag selection is actually changed by raise_client_fn(), because the default implementation (cyclefocus.raise_client_without_focus()) actively selects client's first tag. This requires moving the block where it is called before the tag restoration logic. There don't seem to be any issues with doing that, but this probably needs further testing.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
When finishing the cycling, tags on the final client's screen are unselected, leaving only the client's first tag.
Relevant sections are in the exit_grabber() function (inside cyclefocus.cycle()).
Following part is supposed to restore the tags, but it does not actually handle the client's screen. A separate loop is needed to preserve the behaviour mentioned in the comment.
Tag selection is actually changed by raise_client_fn(), because the default implementation (cyclefocus.raise_client_without_focus()) actively selects client's first tag. This requires moving the block where it is called before the tag restoration logic. There don't seem to be any issues with doing that, but this probably needs further testing.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: