You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
[Feature Request] Make picker width fit browser list instead of URL length #258
The picker can currently become much wider than necessary when opening a long URL
The picker width currently seems to be affected by the length of the URL. With a very long URL, the picker can become a lot wider than the browser list, which can leave a large amount of empty space after the last browser when only a few browsers are configured.
Current Behavior
I think it would be nicer if the picker instead hugged the width of the browser list (plus the normal padding/controls and a minimum width for the address bar), regardless of how long the URL is. The URL could be clipped to fit the available width, similar to how it's handled currently when it doesn't fit the screen.
Expected behavior / example:
Even if the URL becomes longer than the available width, it would be clipped while the picker remains at the size shown.
I've tried to play with this and it's OK unless either URL is too small or the number of browsers is small. I've added the "min width" parameter to v6.3.1 – let's see if this helps?
Thanks for the hard work! Sorry, I think I explained the desired behavior poorly.
Now on v6.3.1 with 8 browsers on a wider screen:
CURRENT BEHAVIOR
Long URL
Short URL
I would expect the picker to have the same width in both cases, based on the browser list. In these examples, it should be wide enough to keep all eight entries on one row, without the extra empty space shown in the "Long URL" image above.
The long URL should be clipped inside the address bar instead of making the picker wider, and a short URL should not make the picker narrower and cause the last browser to wrap onto a second row.
Would it make sense to calculate the width from the browser list, plus a minimum width for the address bar and action buttons, rather than from the URL text? The minimum-width setting helps with small layouts, but I think the URL itself should not affect the picker width.
Activity
aloneguid commentedon Oct 5, 2026
I've tried to play with this and it's OK unless either URL is too small or the number of browsers is small. I've added the "min width" parameter to v6.3.1 – let's see if this helps?
serogee commentedon Oct 10, 2026
Thanks for the hard work! Sorry, I think I explained the desired behavior poorly.
Now on v6.3.1 with 8 browsers on a wider screen:
CURRENT BEHAVIOR
Long URL
Short URL
I would expect the picker to have the same width in both cases, based on the browser list. In these examples, it should be wide enough to keep all eight entries on one row, without the extra empty space shown in the "Long URL" image above.
The long URL should be clipped inside the address bar instead of making the picker wider, and a short URL should not make the picker narrower and cause the last browser to wrap onto a second row.
Would it make sense to calculate the width from the browser list, plus a minimum width for the address bar and action buttons, rather than from the URL text? The minimum-width setting helps with small layouts, but I think the URL itself should not affect the picker width.
oocsng commentedon Oct 11, 2026
should size the picker from the browser list rather than the URL text length:
float box_size_total = box_size_scaled + padding_scaled * 2;
float browsers_width = box_size_total * static_cast(choices.size()) + style.WindowPadding.x * 2;
float min_header_width = 180.0f * w::scale + action_button_width * (action_menu_items.size() + 2);
float target_width = max(browsers_width, min_header_width);
float w_width = clamp(target_width, min_mon_width, max_mon_width);
float usable_w = max(0.0f, w_width - style.WindowPadding.x * 2);
items_per_w = max<size_t>(1, static_cast<size_t>(usable_w / box_size_total));
lines_total = static_cast<size_t>(ceil(static_cast(choices.size()) / static_cast(items_per_w)));
aloneguid commentedon Oct 12, 2026
I think there's a bug in calculating width for icons "larger than the default". Looking into it.
More precise picker calculation for non-default icon sizes and margins (