Qt Designer ui code Qt 6.7 versus Qt 5.15
-
Hello,
Working on my software with Qt 6.7 Designer (as opposed to Qt 6.6.3), I modified the main form, and I saw that some properties in the XML ui file changed from e.g.: Qt::Vertical to Qt::Orientation::Vertical. Compiling with Qt 6.7, my application is OK, but compiling with Qt 5.15 the application appears a bit ugly, because the QSpacer's vertical orientation is not correctly read. Also, if I try to open this ui file with Qt 5.15 Designer I get the corresponding warnings/noncritical errors.
Is this intended? I saw that also Qt 6.8 beta has the same new ui structure.
My application is on https://lalescu.ro/liviu/fet/ , where I provide the sources, a precompiled version for Windows, macOS, and GNU/Linux with Qt 6.7.2 (for now) and with Qt 5.15.14 for Windows 64bit and 32bit (for now), if you want to check it. The main form has a frame around some shortcut buttons, and on Qt 5.15 they appear ugly if you maximize the main form.
Thank you!
-
Hello,
Working on my software with Qt 6.7 Designer (as opposed to Qt 6.6.3), I modified the main form, and I saw that some properties in the XML ui file changed from e.g.: Qt::Vertical to Qt::Orientation::Vertical. Compiling with Qt 6.7, my application is OK, but compiling with Qt 5.15 the application appears a bit ugly, because the QSpacer's vertical orientation is not correctly read. Also, if I try to open this ui file with Qt 5.15 Designer I get the corresponding warnings/noncritical errors.
Is this intended? I saw that also Qt 6.8 beta has the same new ui structure.
My application is on https://lalescu.ro/liviu/fet/ , where I provide the sources, a precompiled version for Windows, macOS, and GNU/Linux with Qt 6.7.2 (for now) and with Qt 5.15.14 for Windows 64bit and 32bit (for now), if you want to check it. The main form has a frame around some shortcut buttons, and on Qt 5.15 they appear ugly if you maximize the main form.
Thank you!
@Liviu-Lalescu said in Qt Designer ui code Qt 6.7 versus Qt 5.15:
Is this intended?
Qt5 and Qt6 differ - yes, so do the ui files.
-
Thank you, @Christian-Ehrlicher ! However, I have to remark that Qt 6.6.3 Designer saves in the old format, compatible with Qt 5.15. Also, I can see at the beginning of the ui file that it is <ui version="4.0"> in the old (Qt 5.15, Qt 6.6.3) and in the new format (Qt 6.7, Qt 6.8).
-
If you think it's a bug the report it at bugreports.qt.io but as I said - the enums changed from Qt5 to Qt6 and now the deprecated ones were removed/no longer used by designer I would guess.
-
I am not sure it is a bug. According to this: https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/qt.html#Orientation-enum , the property is still "Qt::Vertical", not "Qt::Orientation::Vertical", but Qt Designer from Qt 6.7 and Qt 6.8 chose to write in the ui XML as "Qt::Orientation::Vertical".
PS: I don't get email notifications for new replies. Can I correct this?
-
I am not sure it is a bug. According to this: https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/qt.html#Orientation-enum , the property is still "Qt::Vertical", not "Qt::Orientation::Vertical", but Qt Designer from Qt 6.7 and Qt 6.8 chose to write in the ui XML as "Qt::Orientation::Vertical".
PS: I don't get email notifications for new replies. Can I correct this?
@Liviu-Lalescu said in Qt Designer ui code Qt 6.7 versus Qt 5.15:
PS: I don't get email notifications for new replies. Can I correct this?
Check your profile settings (click here).
You can set what notifications you want to receive and where (Forum, Email, Both, etc) -
I am not sure it is a bug. According to this: https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/qt.html#Orientation-enum , the property is still "Qt::Vertical", not "Qt::Orientation::Vertical", but Qt Designer from Qt 6.7 and Qt 6.8 chose to write in the ui XML as "Qt::Orientation::Vertical".
PS: I don't get email notifications for new replies. Can I correct this?
@Liviu-Lalescu said in Qt Designer ui code Qt 6.7 versus Qt 5.15:
I am not sure it is a bug
Simply create one. After all the explanations I am not sure if I am still correct here.
-
Thank you both! I will create a bug report.
-
-
C Christian Ehrlicher referenced this topic on
