V4.3.1 beta channel release

[chaley]

V4.3.1.1 has been release to the beta channel.

V4.3.1.1:

• Add the option to set the cover view background to a single color
• When applying a group on startup, also apply any sort attached to the group
• Attempt to die gracefully if CC's database is corrupted
• [BUG FIX]Fix goodreads identifier links not working
• [BUG FIX]Fix very rare crash when searching
• [BUG FIX]Correct some messages in the auto-connect log

[kaufman]

This fixes both of my issues.

By the way, I was just playing around with the Date Accessed (CC) sort. Still loving it. Thanks.

[mgaillard]

I like the solid color background : just simple, neat and clean.

[jackie_w]

I like the solid background, too. Plain black, just the job

[chaley]

V4.3.1.2:

• Add the ability to color the background of desktop widgets
• Add RGB boxes to the color picker, allowing direct entry of a color

New strings were uploaded for translation.

[Purple Lady]

Did I miss somewhere that the cover size displayed on cover view would shrink on this version? I normally use list view, but decided to try the cover view to check out the new backgrounds. My cover size is medium for cover view. It went from four rows to six.

[chaley]

Originally Posted by Purple Lady

Did I miss somewhere that the cover size displayed on cover view would shrink on this version? I normally use list view, but decided to try the cover view to check out the new backgrounds. My cover size is medium for cover view. It went from four rows to six.

That is odd. The number of cells to display is computed independently of the covers themselves. Instead it uses a theoretical cell size based on the maximum allowable cover size and the chosen box shape (portrait or square).

It fact, when using a solid background the covers themselves are actually slightly larger. There is less space between the covers and between the covers and the edge so there is more usable space inside a cell. For example, on my phone with "Portrait, stretch to fit" and large covers, when using a solid background each cover is 181 x 278 with 20 pixels in the horizontal gap between each cover. When using a wood background each cover is 159 x 239 with 42 pixels between each cover. In both cases the cell is 201 pixels wide.

Is there any chance you changed the cover size and don't remember?

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by chaley

V4.3.1.2:

• Add the ability to color the background of desktop widgets
• Add RGB boxes to the color picker, allowing direct entry of a color

New strings were uploaded for translation.

@chaley, I think there's a wrong string:Invalid RBB values

[chaley]

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

@chaley, I think there's a wrong string:Invalid RBB values

You are right. It should be RGB, not RBB. I fixed it and re-uploaded the file.

[chaley]

This beta was released to production today (13/Dec/15)

[kaufman]

Originally Posted by chaley

• Add the option to set the cover view background to a single color

Don't hate me for this and its really not important, but why is this setting in the Covers and Thumbnails section of the settings, rather than the Customize the Cover Grid section?

Originally Posted by chaley

It fact, when using a solid background the covers themselves are actually slightly larger.

This might actually get me to switch. I love the look of the wooded shelves, but I might love the bigger covers more. Have to think about it.

[chaley]

Originally Posted by kaufman

Don't hate me for this and its really not important, but why is this setting in the Covers and Thumbnails section of the settings, rather than the Customize the Cover Grid section?

It is historical.

If one looks carefully at these options, most of them should be in either "customize the book list", "customize the cover grid", and "book details". The two that are difficult to categorize are "Downloaded cover size" and "Reading book saves cover".

Regardless, I don't see much advantage to moving them at this point.

This might actually get me to switch. I love the look of the wooded shelves, but I might love the bigger covers more. Have to think about it.

I confess that the size increase was accidental. When using the wood background, the left-most and right-most covers must be padded to be further away from the edge in order to account for the wood, and the middle covers needed to be padded to appear visually "correct" with the books on the edge. With the plain background the left/right issue goes away, and even more the grid looked odd if the covers were not equally distributed across the row. Getting rid of the extra padding gave back the space, allowing the covers to be slightly larger.

[kaufman]

Originally Posted by chaley

Getting rid of the extra padding gave back the space, allowing the covers to be slightly larger.

Actually, a good percentage larger:


I loved the bookshelf look, but I'm never going back.

[chaley]

Originally Posted by kaufman

Actually, a good percentage larger:

...

I loved the bookshelf look, but I'm never going back.

Random question: do you use the cover shape "Portrait box: stretch to fit"?

[kaufman]

Originally Posted by chaley

Random question: do you use the cover shape "Portrait box: stretch to fit"?

Well, I was using "Portrait box: preserve aspect ratio" because I thought "Portrait box: stretch to fit" would make the covers look weird, but I just tried it out, and now I am sticking with "stretch to fit" because

1) It looks better to have all the covers the same size.
2) You were smart enough not to change the aspect ratio on the details screen.