Fix TxViewDelegate layout

[hebasto]

This change:

• prevents overlapping date and amount strings
• guaranties that "eye" sign at the end of the watch-only address/label is always visible

Fix bitcoin/bitcoin#20826

Here are some screenshots with this PR with the minimum available width of the transaction list widget:

[dooglus]

Looks good to me. The window is a lot bigger than it was before, and perhaps bigger than absolutely necessary but this is as small as I can make it:

For comparison, this is the 'before' shot:

Edit: the client window is made wider by this fix even for wallets that have no watchonly addresses. Is that intentional?

[maflcko]

Is this for 0.21.1?

[hebasto]

Is this for 0.21.1?

Yes, I think so, as it is a bugfix.

[hebasto]

@dooglus

The window is ... bigger than absolutely necessary

On fresh Debian 10.7 with Xfce 4.12 cannot reproduce such behavior:

Did you tweak fonts or themes?

[dooglus]

Yes I did, and I've included a screenshot of my settings below, but I ought to describe the issue more fully now that I've played around with it more.

I can reproduce the issue as follows: I have 2 wallets, one with watchonly addresses and one without. I have the one without show up by default when the client first loads, and it makes the client window 1109x842 pixels. If I then use the menu in the top right to switch to the wallet with watchonly addresses then the window resizes itself to 1329x842 to make room for the watchonly address balances as expected.

The problem is when I switch back to the first wallet. The window stays at its increased size and I can't shrink it back. Some screenshots:

1. no watchonly - small window:

2. watchonly - bigger window:

3. back to no watchonly, but the window stays big:

---

I have the following font settings:

This is the font I'm using.

[hebasto]

@dooglus

Thanks for testing!

The problem is when I switch back to the first wallet. The window stays at its increased size and I can't shrink it back.

Confirming this regression. Looking for a fix.

[hebasto]

Updated 5cf67f2 -> 1e31eca (pr176.01 -> pr176.02, diff):

• addressed @dooglus' comment:

The problem is when I switch back to the first wallet. The window stays at its increased size and I can't shrink it back.

[jarolrod]

ACK 1e31eca

Tested on macOS 11.1 and Arch Linux both with Qt 5.15.2.

I was able to replicate the bug described by @dooglus on 5cf67f2. I can confirm that 1e31eca now fixes this for me.

[dooglus]

I cherry-picked your commits back to the v0.21.0rc4 tag and built. I saw a warning:

qt/walletframe.cpp: In member function ‘void WalletFrame::setCurrentWallet(WalletModel*)’:
qt/walletframe.cpp:110:9: warning: init-statement in selection statements only available with -std=c++17 or -std=gnu++17
     if (WalletView* view_about_to_hide = currentWalletView(); view_about_to_hide != nullptr) {
         ^~~~~~~~~~

I don't know if I'm supposed to be using a newer compiler but it wasn't enforced when I ran the configure script. If this is intended to be backported to 0.21.1 maybe it shouldn't use c++17 features.

Despite the warning the code works and I can now shrink the window back after switching to and back from the watchonly wallet.

[hebasto]

Updated 1e31eca -> af58f5b (pr176.02 -> pr176.03, diff):

• addressed @dooglus' comment:

If this is intended to be backported to 0.21.1 maybe it shouldn't use c++17 features.

[dooglus]

ACK af58f5b.

Now it resizes the window to make room for the watchonly addresses, allows me to shrink the window back when viewing a wallet without any such addresses, and builds without warnings when I backport it to v0.21.

[jarolrod]

re-ACK af58f5b

Saw the same warning as @dooglus when patching 1e31eca on 0.21rc4. Confirming that no warnings come up when patching af58f5b on top of 0.21rc5. Tested on macOS 11.1 and Arch Linux both with Qt 5.15.2

[hebasto]

@dooglus

ACK 1e31eca.

Now it resizes the window to make room for the watchonly addresses, allows me to shrink the window back when viewing a wallet without any such addresses, and builds without warnings when I backport it to v0.21.

Thanks for reviewing! Is it intentional the previous commit (not the current top) mentioned? 😄

[dooglus]

No, sorry. I meant af58f5b. Have edited it now.