Add table/grid column width in fixed, sizeToConent (auto) and star (proportional)

[BobSilent]

This PR allows to set the column witdh not only to fixed width or auto-size (size to content)
but also allows proportional sizing:

table.AddColumn(new TableColumn("Column 1").StarWidth(1.5));
table.AddColumn(new TableColumn("Column 2").StarWidth(1));

The numbers do not have to be integers.
In this example, column 1 is 1.5 times wider than column 2.

Also available:

table.AddColumn(new TableColumn("Column 1").FixWidth(10));
table.AddColumn(new TableColumn("Column 2").FixWidth(10));
table.AddColumn(new TableColumn("Column 3").SizeToContent());

You can also mix auto-fit and fixed widths with star (proportional) widths; in that case the star columns are apportioned to the remainder after the auto-fit and fixed widths have been calculated:

table.AddColumn(new TableColumn("Column 1").FixWidth(10));
table.AddColumn(new TableColumn("Column 2").StarWidth(1));
table.AddColumn(new TableColumn("Column 3").StarWidth(2));
table.AddColumn(new TableColumn("Column 4").SizeToContent());

This is one part for #518

unfortunately there is a breaking change in new TableColumn("").Width(10) to new TableColumn("").FixWidth(10)

---

Please upvote 👍 this pull request if you are interested in it.

[patriksvensson]

I can't see anything wrong with the code except the breaking change, but I need tests that demonstrate the added functionality.

[BobSilent]

Shall I extend the examples\Console\Tables\Tables.csproj with an example?

[jouniheikniemi]

A lurker commenting here :-) Am I the only person who thinks "Star" is a fairly obscure way to refer to proportional scaling (unless you have a CSS/WPF/... background that is)? "ProportionalWidth" maybe?

[BobSilent]

I am open for better naming's, ProportionalWidth is quite lengthy and is it more precise or clear?
That's why I took the Star name, which is (I thought) quite common in dotnet and CSS.

[phil-scott-78]

The Star name wasn't something I intuitively understood either. ProportionalWidth would also be my preference.

[patriksvensson]

I was thinking a bit. Perhaps we could add overloads to the Width method, which takes a ProportionalWidth struct. That way it would be easily discoverable for users.

table.AddColumn(new TableColumn("Column 1").Width(10));
table.AddColumn(new TableColumn("Column 2").Width(new ProportionalWidth(1.5)));

@phil-scott-78 @nils-a What do you think?

[phil-scott-78]

I like that. Might make making it easier to expand this idea to things like a progress bar too

[nils-a]

Yes, sounds good. Maybe even add a little extension to write it like:

table.AddColumn(new TableColumn("Column 2").Width(1.5.Proportions()));

[BobSilent]

okay, i will prepare a proposal.

What about the IColumn.Width property, would it make sense to also change it, to not be double? but of Type ColumnWidth like that

public class ColumnWidth
{
    public SizeMode SizeMode
    {
        get;
    }

    public double Value
    {
        get;
    }

    private ColumnWidth(SizeMode sizeMode, double value)
    {
        SizeMode = sizeMode;
        Value = value;
    }

    public static ColumnWidth Fixed(int size)
    {
        if (size < 0.0)
        {
            throw new ArgumentException("Fixed size cannot be negative", nameof(size));
        }

        return new ColumnWidth(SizeMode.Fixed, size);
    }

    public static ColumnWidth Proportional(double weight = 1.0)
    {
        if (weight < 0.0)
        {
            throw new ArgumentException("Weight cannot be negative", nameof(weight));
        }

        return new ColumnWidth(SizeMode.Star, weight);
    }

    public static ColumnWidth SizeToContent()
    {
        return new ColumnWidth(SizeMode.SizeToContent, 0.0);
    }
}

than also the Syntax could be aligned

new TableColumn("Column").ProportionalWidth(1.5);

new TableColumn("Column")
{
    Width = ColumnWidth.Proportional(1.5)
}

[nils-a]

Sounds good. Should we add an implicit conversion from double to ColumnWidth, so we don't break every single use of the existing Width?

[khellang]

It seems unnecessary to break the IColumn interface just to convert the Width from int? to double?. What's the benefit?

[khellang]

Also, if you want to avoid breaking changes here, I think it should be considered having a default implementation of SizeMode (returning today's default)

[BobSilent]

Sounds good. Should we add an implicit conversion from double to ColumnWidth, so we don't break every single use of the existing Width?

I updated the PR with the comments. A remarkable part is maybe this line
1739e1d#diff-4280ceab8b9bb14f6f7460e6651481d450117645c33d18e00ec05d92647d6b91R82-R86

I reverted the extensions back to have only a single Width and did not add yet a ProportionalWidth
as it could be now written like

new TableColumn("Column").Width(ColumnWidth.Proportional(1.5));
new TableColumn("Column").Width(ColumnWidth.SizeToContent());
new TableColumn("Column").Width(ColumnWidth.Fix(3));

does it still make sense to have the additional ProportionalWidth and SizeToContent overloads?
ColumnWidth has an implicit conversion from int? (which is the original implementation) to ColumnWidth.
which preseves the existing defaults:

• ColumnWidth.Fix(value) if value is not null
• ColumnWidth.SizeToContent() if given value is null.

[BobSilent]

@patriksvensson did I miss something? Or how can I support to get this merged?

[patriksvensson]

@BobSilent Sorry for taking so long. Life has been hectic. I will set aside some time tomorrow and look through this.
Sorry again.

[BobSilent]

@patriksvensson No problem, take the time you need!
I just wasn't sure: In the beginning the feedback came pretty quickly (and a lot) and suddenly it went quiet. So it wasn't quite clear to me how to understand that - maybe an "undesirable" PR 😃
So the short feedback is enough for me - at the moment 😉

If there are any wishes or suggestions for improvement, please let me know, I would be happy to make my contribution.

[patriksvensson]

@BobSilent Absolutely not undesirable! Very happy with what you've done.

[BobSilent]

@patriksvensson any updates here? 😉

[patriksvensson]

Initially, I think it looks good.
We would need tests that cover the new measuring functionality, though.

[BobSilent]

@patriksvensson I updated the docu

[patriksvensson]

@BobSilent

@patriksvensson I updated the docu

That's great! However, we need tests that cover the new functionality to be able to merge this.

[BobSilent]

Ok, I see. Can you give me a hint for the mentioned functionality and other similar tests.
Then I will provide some tests. This week or by end of next week latest.

[patriksvensson]

I will get back to you with some examples as soon as I have some spare time.

[BobSilent]

@patriksvensson can you please provide me some examples, as I really would like to get this merged 😉

[BobSilent]

@patriksvensson I think you forgot me...