Button for part updating to put layout changes into effect

• Dec 22, 2015 - 19:45
S5 - Suggestion

1. If I use symbols in the partiture and adjust them manually, they will not be adjusted in the parts. This will also not be changed after saving and restart.
The same vice versa, if I change the position in a part it will not be changed in the partiture.

2. The only possibility I see is to make the parts new - it would be good to have an part update function. Else you first always have to delete all parts one by one ...

3. The parts-dialog always is hidden behind the main window, if I e.g. delete one of the part. This seems to be a problem with some other dialogues also, at least under linux (linuxmint).

GIT commit: c012358


1. This is by design. Often you need different manual positions in score versus parts, because layout is toally different - different note spacing, different measures on different systems. A dynamic moved in the score to avoid a marking in another staff won't need to be moved in the part. And so on.

2) What you do mean by "part udpate function"? The whole point of parts is that they update automatically. You should not normally need to do anything to update them.

3) What do you mean here? The parts dialog should always be visible unless you close it. Can you post specific steps to follow where this does not remain true?

1. That might be true, that score and part need different positioning sometimes. But the problem is you have to set these symbols twice, especially with tablature.
The symbols per default are set directly on the note/tab sign, which never ever is, the place, where they should be. So in my opinion, it would be good that positioning of symbols in the score also will be changed in the part.
You can change anyway things afterwards if it is necessary.

2. I think of deleting the parts and making them new in one step.

3. If I delete one part in the dialogue, the box will be hidden behind the main window.
Open parts dialogue, select one part, delete it ...

1) Yes, because sometimes symbosl might need different positions, you need to set the positions twice. Again, this is not a bug - it would be a bug if moving a symbol in the score affected the part when you didn't want it to, because there would be no workaround. Feel free to submit a separate feature request to have a way of automatically applying an adjustment to all linked scores. but best to discuss things liek this in the forum first.

2) True, it takes two steps - but sagain, this is not something you would ever normally need to do, so why is the one extra click an issue? Again, best to discuss suggestions for imrpvoement in the forum first.

3) I cannot reproduce. Can you post the score you are having problems with? When I press Delete, the dialog remains on top. Is it really as simple as going to File / Parts, selecting a part, and pressing Delete, and for you the dialog disappears? I am on Linux as well. What window manager do you use?

1) Probably I will wait with a discussion, as I'm not sure how the ornaments etc. for lute will be implemented. If it stays as it is now, I will consider to request it.
E.g. I have great problems with the slurs, that I all turned down, and in the lute part they are again the other way round, which looks quite awkward ...

2) You're right, but in fact it is more than 2 clicks, as you have to delete each part extra. It would be good to have the possibility to select all, or delete all in once - then the other thing isn't necessary, I agree.

3) I tested again and first it seemed to work as it should. But then I could reproduce it with every score, even a new one with one instrument.
Try the following:
Go to "parts...", make "new all". Then click OK. Then open again "parts..."; and if you now delete one part; the dialogue gets hidden ...

For #2, maybe it could simply be a "Reset" button.

For #3, I can reproduce. In fact, there are issues with the actual behavior in the part dialog. Here, the problem is that the part if immediately erased when we click the button, so the focus gets to the score. If my PR gets merged, this won't happen because no changes in the parts dialog with be done before the user clicks OK. See https://musescore.org/fr/node/89791

2) I stull don't understand the need for the feature. This is nit so ething the average user would ever need to do. Can you explain the use case that makes it worth having a dedicated button? Understanding why it would be needed in regular use would increase the likelhood of it being implemented. Also, filing a separate feature request: each bug or feature should be in a separate issue.

3) I still cannot duplicate.. Can you please give complete precise steps from start to finish? i tried the following and it worked with no issues on Ubuntu with xfce4:


1) open musescore
2) my first score
3) file / parts
4) new all
5) ok
6) file / parts
7) click the part
8) delete

At no time did the dialog disappear. Is there something I am missing?

ad 3) Some of the dialogue boxes seem to go to the background, when I click on the main window, some don't (I hope I have the correct English titles, as I am using the German version). I only give the ones, that could be hidden behind the main window:
Parts, Save online, Score Info, Print,
Startcenter (even automatically, as for me the mixer is loaded in the beginning),
Page Options, Text styles

It seems, as if (at least for my system, linuxmint with cinnamon) all dialogue boxes, that have a closer, will be hidden behind the main window, if I click on the main window. The latter should not be possible for dialogues that block the main window ...

Hmm, that's good extra information, and certainly could explain why you are seeing the issue with the parts dialog seeming to hide itself. I am unable to reproduce any of this - for me, those dialogs always remain on toop just like they are supposed to, even if I click on the main window below them. But I guess maybe it is some particular quirk of how Qt works on your particular OS / window management system. Could be worth searching the Qt archives to see if anyone else has reported anything similar regarding Linux Mint. What window manager are you using?

I use cinnamon 2.87 - it seems to be a fork of gnome shell and mutter.

Here is a quote of wikipedia:
Muffin is a fork of Mutter by the Linux Mint team for their Cinnamon desktop environment. Cinnamon's shell, a fork of GNOME Shell, is written as a plugin for Muffin.

BTW - not all of the dialogues that have a closer can be put to the background ... (e.g. mixer also has one and stays in the foreground)

On another computer I tried it with ubuntu 14.04/unity - there I had the same problems, although there another windows manager is used (compiz) ...

I looked for such problems on the net, but didn't found anything.
Is it possible that has to do with the qt version (5.3) or is it the same for all builds?

Title Some issues with partiture and parts Button for part updating to put layout changes into efffect
Severity S4 - Minor S5 - Suggestion
Status needs info active
Regression No
Workaround No

@Marc Sabatella
I understand the second point the OP was talking about: generating parts does put some layout settings (such as visibility) into effect, so if an element is invisible when no parts are generated, it'll still be invisible on its part when it's generated. But if you then set the element to visible in the master score, it won't turn visible on the part. It's a bit annoying if you generate parts in the middle of inputing and then you find out all layout changes from that point don't apply to parts and you have to delete them all and re-generate them. So I think it's nice to have that part updating button.

Title Button for part updating to put layout changes into efffect Button for part updating to put layout changes into effect

It's quite deliberate that toggling visibility in the score isn't linked to the part and vice versa. Many people rely on this feature to have symbols that appear in the part but not the score, it's quite essential. On the other hand, it would be nice to have a way of overriding this on a case-by-case basis - to make some elements / properties that are normally linked not be, and vice versa.

The ability to move certain formatting abilities from score to parts would be useful to me. One place I would use it is to layout measures on a staff to the parts. Although not always the same, I have enough times where it is the same that it would be a welcome feature.

Another place is when I update a score from a previous version. It would be useful to have the basic layout the same, including the various fonts and styles.

Won't importing from 2.x to 3.x have the same basic layout? MuseScore doesn't have to change your fonts and styles intentionally after all.

It's the fact that really we don't all "formatting" copied to parts that makes me say, we really need to step back and consider the design here. Like, what if "apply to parts" were connected to the same mechanism as the "reset" and "set as style" buttons for each property in the Inspector? Maybe that's overkill, but pretty sure a global "copy all formatting", even "copy all formatting for selected elements" would be too broad to be useful. Plus, breaks are very different from properties like visibility. Applying breaks to parts is really a separate thing (a matter of adding new elements) from linking manual adjustments (a matter of copying properties).

In theory, "copy breaks to parts" could be done easily via a menu item or even plugin. But dealing with individual properties is far more complicated in terms of how it would need to be modeled and implemented.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

What I expect the functionality of this button (or "clickable item", whatever) to be is an equivalent substitution of deleting all parts and adding them all back (which will keep things like visibility synced between master score and parts), so that I don't have to do the latter too often. Nothing about breaks or any other elements that clearly aren't appliable to parts.

Ah, but the behavior you propose wouldn't handle breaks at all, then, since they aren't synced ever. And that was specifically one of the things being discussed here. Also, it's questionable as to whether our current behavior where certain properties get inherited on initial part creation and others don't actually makes sense, which is to say, you might well lose some of the manual formatting you had done in the parts if that's what the button did. So again, to me, worth taking a step back and really thinking about the overall design here. Meanwhile, deleting and recreating a part is simple enough to get that particular effect, it's just not really clear this particular behavior is useful enough to be worth a dedicated command. Could in theory also be done as a plugin, though.