Add commands: Shift-Q "Decrease duration dotted" and Shift-W "Increase duration dotted"

• Feb 20, 2017 - 05:33
Reported version
S5 - Suggestion

Currently, pressing "Q" or "W" will execute commands to half or double the duration of the currently selected note.

My feature request is to add commands mapped to Shift->Q and Shift->W to dec/inc duration of next nearest dotted or undotted note.

This will fix #122081: Request for command to change duration (including adding dot) retroactively in note input mode because user could press Shift->W to dot the note retroactively even while in note entry mode.


The way I'm implementing is to unify the command cmdHalfDuration() and cmdDoubleDuration() into a generalized command cmdIncDecDuration(int nSteps, bool stepDotted) which maps to the key commands according to:

"double-duration" ->            [this]{ cmdIncDecDuration(-1, false);
"half-duration"   ->            [this]{ cmdIncDecDuration(1, false);
"inc-duration-dotted" ->        [this]{ cmdIncDecDuration(-1, true);
"dec-duration-dotted" ->        [this]{ cmdIncDecDuration(1, true);

This way I simply the codebase a bit by reusing code.

I'm making an alternate version of TDuration::shift() call shiftRetainDots(int nSteps, bool stepDotted = false) which retains the dots, unlike shift() which doesn't return dots. This will simultaneous fix what I perceive as a bug in current 2.0.3 behavior in that Q/W doesn't obey the current state of the dots when halving/doubling.

there is also another bug with previous (2.0.3) implementation: if selected a whole note tied to another whole note, then upon halving the duration, it reduces the whole note in half into a whole note, but incorrectly leaves the tie in place. And similarly for other cases where tie is present. But doesn't happen for all combinations of steps. I might fix this while I'm doing this...

Here is how repeatedly pressing Shift-W works in my implementation when starting with quarter note:
press Shift+W:
press Shift+W:
press Shift+W:
press Shift+W:
press Shift+W:
press Shift+W:
press Shift+W:
press Shift+W:

and in reverse (pressing Shift-Q repeatedly) starting from that longa:

press Shift+Q
press Shift+Q
press Shift+Q
(note I had to press shift+Q twice here...I'll look into...seems to be related to preexisting bug I mentioned a couple comments above)
press Shift+Q
press Shift+Q
press Shift+Q
press Shift+Q
press Shift+Q
press Shift+Q
press Shift+Q
press Shift+Q
press Shift+Q
and so on.

One thing I noticed with both Q and Shift Q when tied over is that that they don't remove the no-longer tied over notes...I believe that the code should remove them, though... (EDIT: I found function Score::changeCRlen(ChordRest* cr, const Fraction& dstF, bool fillWithRest) which does exactly that...I'm going to use that function instead of the other one which doesn't fill with rests! Actually that function doesn't quite do that when tied over)

also I noticed another preexisting glitch in 3.0 and 2.1: it seems that a "measure rest" is being interpreted as a quarter note for purposes of Q & W, but I think it should be interpreted as the duration of a measure.

I looked at it very closely and thought I had commented that it looked good except that when you reduce a dotted whole note or longer the 1/2 of the note not still there needs to be all rests.

I haven't tried and am not sure how much I'd use it - I'm pretty well trained at this point to enter dots before the note. But I very much like the idea as a way of addressing the concern some have about wanting to add the dot afterwards. Some people might choose to redefine the shortcut from Shift+W to Shift+"." to make this usage more obvious, but I think keeping it as proposed here makes sense by default.

regarding #8 comment, that behavior is still present with regular Q, so I decided to not bother changing that. I would want to make a separate feature request if wanted to fix that behavior for both Q and Shift Q simultaneously, since they share similar code.

the code for my Shift version uses much of the same code for the regular Q/W.

I'd have to recompile to be sure, but what I recall happening was that for a dotted whole note in 6/4, pressing Shift+W would increase into a dotted whole note tied over to a half note in the next measure, while pressing Shift+Q would decrease into a whole note. But I'm not sure I tested that behavior.

Title add Shift->Q and Shift->W commands to dec/inc duration to next nearest dotted or undotted note Add Shift-Q and Shift-W commands to decrease/increase duration to next nearest dotted or undotted note

Why not 2.1? I've never tested a master since I test it while I'm doing my work in 2.x so my scores are saved in a format I can continue using. I did have that one score that MS couldn't read, but I fixed that and the code fix was just merged. I'll be testing that when I download a nightly with enough changes to make it worth my while.. All of these files are huge and I have limited data per month. Since I started using 2.1 I only download 2-3 updates a month. If it crashes 2.1 it can be removed.

I've been testing on master, I noticed an issue when pressing W (with or without shift) on a note in a 2nd voice will cause unnecessary 2nd voice rest in the subsequent measure, but this issue is also present on 2.0.3, which means my code is NOT responsible. Reproduction steps in 2.0.3:

1. create quarter note in 2nd voice:
2. select it an press "w".
The result is the creation of an unnecessary whole in the 2nd voice of the 2nd measure:

Similarly, if use shift "W" in latest master, I can get similar types of unnecessary rests appear in the next measure. So basically the original code didn't actually handle voices properly, it seems.

Should I go ahead and file this and look into?

I have noticed, in voice 2, that if a rest is made that ends at the end of a measure, it will automatically create a rest in the next measure. To reproduce what I'm talking about make the 1/2 rest 2 1/4 rests (by pressing 5) then select beat 3 and press 6. It will change back to a 1/2 rest and a measure rest will appear in the next measure in voice 2.

@mike320, excellent observation, thanks. I can observe that behavior in 2.0.3 as well, but not just when beat 3 was a quarter rest, but also when beat 3 was a quarter note. So really that means the bug is not in the original Q/W code, but rather the bug lies with the manner in which musescore adds rests when a chord-rest in a voice has its duration changed.

I'll going to tackle:
#183471: increasing duration of note in any voice shouldn't produce unnecessary rest in next measure
#183276: disable durations smaller than 128th when use "Q" or Shift + "Q" in 2.1-dev

There is also the question about what to do when pressing Q or shift Q after pressing W or shift W causes a tie to form. Should the tie be broken when pressing Q or shift Q?

(fyi my internet is down temporarily, and I'm using someone else's phone to type so I can write out complete issue.)

*Why not 2.1?*

It doesn't work out of the box in 2.1 branch. It needed to be merged manually and even with that, it's currently not working. I don't know yet why.

#28 For consistency's sake I would suggest breaking the tie. For example, if you use it on a "dotted" whole note in 4/4 time it leaves a 1/2 note, 1/2 rest followed by a 1/2 note in the next measure. If you use shift W on a 1/2 note tied to an 1/8 note it will overwrite the 1/8 with a dot. What other option would be possible with that?

For consistency's sake I would suggest breaking the tie. For example, if you use it on a "dotted" whole note in 4/4 time it leaves a 1/2 note, 1/2 rest followed by a 1/2 note in the next measure.

What you describe is something I've often thought seems like buggy behavior, though, so maybe for consistency's sake it shouldn't happen. ;-)

I initially opposed the idea of that being the result, but there are a couple of things that make me second guess this opinion.

1. My 1/2 note tied to a 1/8 note example above
2. I expect the code to determine the length of a tied note will become complicated finally deciding if it is the same value as any dotted note. If it is not a dotted note length, then what would the result be? This of course is the same question for #2. If it is, the code then needs to fill the end of the note, possibly several measures away, with rests to eliminate the "dot" or add notes (possibly several notes away) to add the "dot."
3. What do you do if it is a dotted 1/2 note tied to a 1/8th note? What happens if I press shift Q and what happens if I press shift W? I think leaving it consistent with the Q & W (ignore any tie or dot) is a better option. What ever the answer to that question is should be the same as the answer to a 4/4 whole note tied to a 1/2 note and 1/8 note e.g.

What is bothersome to me is that although it "ignores" the tie if it is just tied over to the immediate next measure, it doesn't ignore the fact that it is tied if user has incremented from a *double whole* to a *longa* and then presses Q to go back down to a *double whole*.

Now I believe I know why the behavior is so strange. It is because the code is following the duration that is currently selected in the note input toolbar. I believe the code would work correctly if it instead followed the total duration of the currently selected note, taking into account what duration notes are tied after it.

I believe the code would work correctly if it instead followed the total duration of the currently selected note, taking into account what duration notes are tied after it.
Can of works detected. It's not a note, it's a chord, and some notes may be tied and some others not.

ok, thanks. Yes I'm aware that the note may be part of a chord that is not completely tied over, but I was thinking of just looking at the selected note and seeing it was tied over. But anyway, sounds like the tied issue is something that we are not going to worry about. That is less of a headache.

I'm testing 2.1 nightly build 9ca7d0b and some strange things happen with this. shift-Q and shift-W have no effect, but q and w alone work as described here. If you're curious, I don't have caps lock on.

When I applied q to a dotted 64th note I got a dotted 128th note as expected, but there is no 256th rest anywhere in the measure, by my math that is the wrong number of beats my 6/8 measure.

dotted 128th.png

Measure is too long. When I "change" the duration of the last 128th rest in this measure to a 128th rest it keeps the same rest symbol, but adds a 256th rest to the next measure that looks like a 128th rest. MS thinks the rest is a 256th rest, but prints a 128th rest and reports is as such on the identity line at the bottom.

When I save and reopen the file, it is reported as corrupt. It says
measure...incomplete. Expected 6/8 found 189/256

189/256 < 6/8 so it believes a part of a beat is missing.

@mike320, I'm also testing 9ca7d0b right now...but I'm able to use Shift-Q and Shift-W.

I am noting that I am unable to produce a dotted 128th note by applying a dot to a regular 128th note. I am only able to produce the dotted 128th note by starting from a dotted 64th note and pressing Q.

the problem occurs when the dotted 128th is created from the dotted 64th, which results in:


The problem is that that first rest is a 128th rest but really needs to be a 256th rest. I'm guessing that the 2.1 code is preventing the 256th rest from being created.

I also note that a similar problem occurs when trying to create a dotted 128th from a regular 64th by pressing shift+Q:


So it seems since 256th rests aren't being created, the solution is to disable the ability to create a dotted 128th note via Q or Shift-Q.

Also I will need to prevent the creation of a double-dotted 64th note (which could be created by pressing Q on a double-dotted 32nd note), since that would have resulting in a 256th rest which can't be represented in 2.1, as can see in the following erroneous result:


(that first rest should be a 256th, but 2.1 can't represent that)

Seems like I can produce triple-dotted notes in 2.1 by making a measure end with a 128th note, then changing that 128th into a quarter note:


So now with that triple-dotted eight note, I can press Q twice and produce erroneous result:


Which is problematic because that tripple-dotted 32nd needs to match up with a 256th rest, which can't exist.

Are there any other corner cases I need to worry about, such as quad-dotted 16th notes??? Maybe I'll go test for that also...

So those issues could hypothetically happen in 3.0-dev, which is limited to 1024th notes and quad-dots, so I've locially extended my 2.1-only fix and made a corresponding 3.0-only fix:
and Shift-W commands to decrease
Folks there is one minor issue I noticed: my shift+Q jumps down to the next smallest non-dotted note when it is applied to a double-dotted, triple-dotted, or quad-dotted note. So that means that a quad-dotted half note:


will become a plain half-note if press shift+Q on it:


Similarly a tripple-dotted half note would become plain half.
Similarly a double-dotted half note would become plain half.

I don't think this is bad, actually. But it just means that the name of my feature isn't quite accurate, because according to my feature title, those should have all become single-dotted half notes. So I could change the name of my feature to say:

1. Shift+W to increase duration to next larger dotted or undotted duration.
2. Shift+Q to decrease duration of undotted duration to next smaller dotted duration.
3. Shift+Q to decrease duration of [single,double,triple,quad]-dotted duration to next smaller undotted duration.

Or I could re-implement so behavior adheres to my original title. But I don't want to reimplement because I actually like how it behaves on case 3, to be honest, and because I don't want to screw things up.

Title Add Shift-Q and Shift-W commands to decrease/increase duration to next nearest dotted or undotted note Add commands: Shift-Q "Decrease duration dotted" and Shift-W "Increase duration dotted"

I made a PR for the simplest test cases of Q, W, Shift-Q, Shift-W:

I'm also making a decision (after a bit of thought) to simplify the text description of the command (which affects how it appears in Edit->Preferences->Shortcuts), and renamed the title of this feature request accordingly. I'm renaming because (a) it was too wordy, so might be confusing to new users, and because (b) it did not exactly reflect the behavior that I implemented for cases when applied to notes with more than one dot.

For reference, if currently-selected duration has one or more dots, the behavior is the following:
1. Shift+W will increase to next larger undotted duration
2. Shift+Q will decrease to next smaller undotted duration

So, in that circumstance, that's exactly what W and Q respectively already do. This is why my preference was for making Q and W consistent rather than adding new, separate commands.

Well that's a good point that Shift+Q/W will already go to nearest undotted when applied to a double-trip-or-quad--dotted chordrest. So, maybe I should have it always go to the nearest dot. To be honest, I didn't really consider what should happen to a double-trip-or-quad--dotted chordrest when I first made it. But none of this is a good reason to change the behaviour of Q/W.

I'm also wondering if people would want a Ctrl-Shift Q/W which would step to next nearest Double-Dotted, Single-Dotted, or Undotted chordrest? It should be fairly straightforward now that I know what to look out for.

Leaving aside multiple dots, I think the best way to make Q/W and Shift+Q/W distinct would be to have Q/W on a dotted note double/halve its duration.

have Q/W on a dotted note double/halve its duration.

Actually that is why my implementation (which has been merged into 2.1 and master) does for regular Q/W. That is what I think it should do anyway. I was actually unaware that 2.0.3 did not do that. I actually consider the 2.0.3 behavior for pressing Q/W on a dotted note to be a bug, since the Shortcut is labeled "Half duration" and "Double duration", but 2.0.3 does not actually Half or Double the dotted note's duration. So when I implemented my modification, I subconsciously fixed that "bug".

Anway, the question I'm still debating with myself is what should happen when pressing Shift+Q on a double-dotted note, for example: