[Image2] If only one dimension is set the missing one should not be set when resizing image

[Piotrek Koszuliński]

TC1:

1. Open image2 sample.
2. Doubleclick image.
3. Change the width to 300.
4. See that height was set too although it was empty at the beginning. I'd expect that it was left empty.

Notice that in step 2 "keep ratio" is on. I think that it's ok, because it tells user that ratio will be kept if he changes size, which is true because the missing dimension is calculated automatically.

TC2:

1. Open image2 sample.
2. Doubleclick image to verify that only width is set. Close the dialog.
3. Resize image using handler.
4. Doubleclick image.
5. See that both dimensions are set now.

• Edit: TC2 is not about reading dimensions by dialog but about editor calculating both dimensions. In HTML when only one dimension is set the other one is automatically calculated by browser so we should not interfere it.

[Olek Nowodziński]

cc

[Jakub Ś]

I understand @Reinmar point of view. What he means is when you have only one dimension set in HTML and you change it, browser will automatically calculate another dimension thus we should not do or set anything for height in this particular case. I however have some doubts about this approach because:

1. When you open image2 properties, lock is locked which means keep aspect ratio option is enabled and height will be calculated whenever width is changed. This makes sense to me and is what I expect and what I'm used to because desktop graphic programs work the same way.
   I think what is needed here is configuration option to keep "aspect ratio" open or closed when dialog is opened. That way both point of views can be satisfied.

2. When I resize image2 manually, arrow that is shown suggests that I will be resizing both dimensions - width and height. Again this is what I would expect. I resize both dimensions thus, both of them IMO should be set and this is what editor does at the moment – calculates both dimensions as resize arrow indicates.

[Piotrek Koszuliński]

I think that it's a matter of some preferences or understanding and control over the HTML behind. I understand your points too, but personally I expect something different. I'm confirming this issue, but we'll wait for user reports to see if they expect a change and in which direction.