If users don't enable the option in Latte:
  - don't touch that kwin value, regardless of the kwin value.
(The bug happens when the kwin value = true, Latte value = default (false) )


Else:
  - Latte manages it as the current implementation

More general. Current implementation:
If: - Latte option: OFF
    - kwin BorderlessMaximizedWindows value <> the layout's specific value (*)

-> when start Latte with the layout (*):
OBSERVED RESULT
Latte writes BorderlessMaximizedWindows to the specific value of the layout

EXPECTED RESULT
It shouldn't touch that value UNLESS users enable the Latte option.

By "Latte option", I mean the "canDisableBorders" key.

canDisableBorders=false -> don't modify BorderlessMaximizedWindows. But currently it does.
canDisableBorders=true -> ok, Latte manages it

I guess you miss some `m_corona->universalSettings()->canDisableBorders()` here https://github.com/KDE/latte-dock/blob/09fe5e385b4df76afbd342fab61afe6c642aaaf1/app/layout.cpp#L201

(In reply to trmdi from comment #0)
> STEPS TO REPRODUCE
> 1. Set BorderlessMaximizedWindows=true manually in kwinrc
> 2. Start Latte with the default setting.
> 
> OBSERVED RESULT
> Latte writes BorderlessMaximizedWindows=false
> 
> EXPECTED RESULT
> It shouldn't touch that value UNLESS users enable the Latte option.


You see a fault but you dont understand the reason. This is on purpose. Latte respects the default values of kwin... If the user does not touch the kwin value at all which is BorderlessMaximizedWindows=false the Latte wont activate it... This is the majority of cases...

Latte v0.8 supports multiple layouts and these layouts can have different values for BorderlessMaximizedWindows. The only solution was that if the user wants to set BorderlessMaximizedWindows then it should do it in Latte way... The users must be educated it this... The alternative would be that Latte would break the kwin default option BorderlessMaximizedWindows=false and that is not an option...

The problem arises when:

a) a user manually sets  BorderlessMaximizedWindows=true
b) a user activates it in AWC

and for both [a] and [b] the user uses Latte>=v0.8 ...

this is going to be solved and the solution applied to Latte only if there is an opinion that doesnt break kwin default behavior and respects also MultipleLayouts of Latte...

Wait...
So what is the purpose of "canDisableBorders=false" ?

> If the user does not touch the kwin value at all which is BorderlessMaximizedWindows=false the Latte wont activate it...

You are wrong.
You can test that with these steps:
1. set canDisableBorders = false
2. set BorderlessMaximizedWindows=false
3. start latte with a layout that has BorderlessMaximizedWindows=true

OBSERVED RESULT
Latte writes BorderlessMaximizedWindows=true (that is not your intention right?)

EXPECTED RESULT
It shouldn't touch that value UNLESS users enable the Latte option.

I'm not talking about the case canDisableBorders=true

I'm talking about the case canDisableBorders=false.

(In reply to trmdi from comment #4)
> I guess you miss some `m_corona->universalSettings()->canDisableBorders()`
> here
> https://github.com/KDE/latte-dock/blob/
> 09fe5e385b4df76afbd342fab61afe6c642aaaf1/app/layout.cpp#L201

You just missed an condition at this line.

(In reply to trmdi from comment #7)
> > If the user does not touch the kwin value at all which is BorderlessMaximizedWindows=false the Latte wont activate it...
> 
> You are wrong.
> You can test that with these steps:
> 1. set canDisableBorders = false
> 2. set BorderlessMaximizedWindows=false
> 3. start latte with a layout that has BorderlessMaximizedWindows=true
> 


reproduced and this is a bug...

Git commit f62f7485c03c96d944e01171f4657e618a008475 by Michail Vourlakos.
Committed on 06/10/2018 at 22:14.
Pushed by mvourlakos into branch 'v0.8'.

dont break BorderlessMaximized window default

--dont update the BorderlessMaximized value if
the user hasnt explicitly enabled it from Latte
options.
FIXED-IN: 0.8.2

M  +2    -1    app/layout.cpp

https://commits.kde.org/latte-dock/f62f7485c03c96d944e01171f4657e618a008475

(In reply to trmdi from comment #9)
> (In reply to trmdi from comment #4)
> You just missed an condition at this line.

fantastic catch! thanks!!!