Could you consider submitting the spacer module to ultrabug / py3status?

[nwg-piotr]

Hi,

The spacer module works well, but I need to add PRs to my fork manually to keep py3status up and running. Do you think it's possible to merge spacer into the the main repository?

Regards,
Piotr

[lasers]

You can specify py3status --include PATH or leave modules in ~/.config/py3status/modules/. I keep pew.py and others in my ~/.config/py3status/modules/.

Then I realized there is py3.py diff. That wouldn't work. Pinging @ultrabug to see what he want to do about this issue.

If this is right, you should be on a different branch and just keep pulling in/rebasing changes instead of adding PRs to your fork manually. I have a personal branch containing ultrabug#1725 and other branches.

(Opinion) spacer.py is more of a hack than a module and I'd like for i3 to come up with a solution that works quite well across multiple monitors / different resolutions.

[nwg-piotr]

The latter seems not really convenient way for the user (who I am) to keep software up to date. :) Well, I need to think about it.

[ultrabug]

Hi

TBH I don't even understand the purpose of the module but since that's not the point of this issue, let me shed a light on this matter here.

1. you could use self.py3._output_modules even if that's discouraged
2. you could propose to add a get_outputs method added to py3

    def get_outputs(self):
        """
        Return all modules output.
        """
        return self._output_modules

3. working with include-path is good for one's own modules imho but can be boring for remote users as expressed by @nwg-piotr . So just like the pew module showcased, @lasers could also now have his own package on PyPi that anybody could rely on easily. This would allow anybody to seamlessly start using your modules here @lasers without the blockers of my approval .

This would allow the main repo to focus on core + basic set of modules as well while freeing anyone to expand py3status on their own (except core modifications ofc)

As a sidenote, if that space module is cool & simple enough, we ofc could add it :)

[nwg-piotr]

I don't even understand the purpose of the module

The purpose is to be able to left align a part of the output. See the bottom panel:

This is not exactly what I meant, as it requires the width argument, which I expected to be auto-calculated. However, it works well enough.

if that space module is cool & simple enough, we ofc could add it :)

This would be the simplest solution IMO. Thanks in advance in case you decided to do so.

[ultrabug]

Oh thanks @nwg-piotr I now understand... I guess I was stupid.

I expected to be auto-calculated

How could we do that? I'd love to

[nwg-piotr]

I wish I knew. I'm just jealous of the qtile spacer module. This needs a better programmer than myself.

[lasers]

I expected to be auto-calculated

I think it may be impossible because of factors like same bars on different monitor / resolutions. Also, I recall the text would be swallowed by number of (or longer custom) workspaces on lower resolutions.

Wild idea: Maybe if i3bar, qtile.bar or other bar could accept multiple status_command (e.g. left, center, right), then we could mix statuses all on the same bar?

Example:

• status_command_left py3status
• status_command_center i3block
• status_command_right bumblebee-status

Can we use qtile.bar on i3wm without qtile? If yes, then I wonder if if this would work... for qtile to make a module that can accept status_command?

Will try discouraged self.py3._output_modules + ~/.config/py3status/modules later.

[lasers]

@nwg-piotr wip2 pushed. Try again. Put the module in ~/.config/py3status/modules.

[ultrabug]

I think it may be impossible because of factors like same bars on different monitor / resolutions.

Hard and cumbersome for sure, impossible never :)

Wild idea: Maybe the easiest way to achieve this is to make the spacer module interactively configurable. My initial idea feels like a "calibration" process:

• user adds spacer module
• spacer module starts and if never configured asks for a "left click to setup"
• then every click adds a "M" letter to the bar until the bar fills and the spacer module (which outputs short_text) displays its short text "now right click on me!" which allows the spacer module to know how many free space there is and stores it on py3 storage

Sounds fun & doable :)

[nwg-piotr]

I think it may be impossible

To my needs the current spacer by @lasers works well enough.

wip2 pushed. Try again.

Thanks, I will.

the text would be swallowed by number of (or longer custom) workspaces

My workspace names are up to 30 chars long, as I name them dynamically:

but in the panel I use spacer, I don't display workspaces. :)

[lasers]

wip3 pushed.

[nwg-piotr]

wip3 pushed

Haha! Works perfectly! Use of the mouse scroll is funny. :)

[ultrabug]

smart move @lasers :) PR that for 3.22 maybe?

[lasers]

@ultrabug It's still a hack. I would like to keep this unsupported and that there could be edge cases such as losing width when reorganizing... and that users can't add multiple spacer on a single bar.

Since it does mostly what @nwg-piotr want, then swell, he can keep using this as-is... and we could always link it back to here if needed for other users.

For 3.22, maybe we could do:

• [RFC] Remove Python 2 compatibility ultrabug/py3status#1660 (i imagine you take up reins on this)
• Consolidate scratchpad_* into a single module (i finished iirc)
• Consolidate window_title_* into a single module (i stopped wip)
• Drop nvidia_temp in favor of nvidia_smi.
• I dunno what else. General minor fixes + cleanups.

---

• Drop hardcoded color in favor of \?color=stuff {stuff} (???)
• Fix bitcoin_price the right way (???) (i finished iirc).
• Many more, but I already put in efforts long time ago, lol.

[nwg-piotr]

if needed for other users

I believe that many (or even most) users would benefit from the module, but I understand your position. Thanks for your effort very much.

[ultrabug]

@lasers ok let's keep it here for now then until we have something better to work with

3.22 ok to move on consolidating things

As for ultrabug#1660 I'm not sure doing it on a "simple mainline" release is a good choice at the moment