Double size of remaining components of logic editor

[Amadeus1791]

• Those changes would complete the double sizing of all components for better visibility.
• The other changes were done before in Double size of ground and output figures #658 and Double size for AND,OR,XOR gates for better visibility #657)

[azoitl]

It looks like the changes in the LED led to some issues with grid alignment.

[ptziegler]

It looks like the changes in the LED led to some issues with grid alignment.

The "Snap to Grid" is working. It's just that the LED is not where it's supposed to be.

gef-classic/org.eclipse.gef.tests/src/org/eclipse/gef/test/swtbot/LogicDiagramTests.java

Lines 139 to 142 in 804f418

	UIThreadRunnable.syncExec(() -> {
	editor.drag(editPart, 200, 45);
	forceUpdate(editor.getSWTBotGefViewer());
	});

The label snaps to the circuit, not to the connectors. Because the figure is now twice as large, the circuit starts at y = 52, rather than y = 50. And as a result, the position where the label is moved to is too far away for the "snap to grid" to be applied.

[ptziegler]

Just a thought: If the size of the figures are doubled, then having a threshhold of only 5 pixels for the snap-to-grid is really low. Would it make sense to double that as well?

[Amadeus1791]

Thanks for you feedback, I appreciate it a lot! I added a follow-up commit to fix grid and snap-to-geometry tests. Those two test were affected by the component size changes. It happened since the snap points shifted relative to the grid due to the changed component boundaries.

[ptziegler]

@azoitl I think for the future, it would be better to just squash multiple commits. Or is there any benefit in keeping them separate?

[azoitl]

In this specific case I was not sure. Normally I do not squash if each of the commits is by itself an own independent contribution. I kept it separate because I didn't want to loos the information that changing sizes may have other impact. Not sure if that was good.

[ptziegler]

This itself is fine, but I usually like to avoid doing a "rebase and merge" when there are multiple commits. Otherwise it's simply not obvious that both commits are related, if one would ever need to revert them.

[azoitl]

@ptziegler that is a good point. Will keep that in mind.