Analog + Digital Clock module

KirAsh4

At the moment, it’s hard coded in. I’d have to add a config option so it can be turned off when used as a separate module.

KirAsh4

Ok, I have it in my dev branch, but I won’t push it up just yet. I’ll wait a bit to see if there are other things that people will request or fixes. But if you must get rid of it now, you can manually edit the 'clock.js' file and delete line 173:

169:    } else if (this.config.displayType === 'analog') {
170:        // Display only an analog clock
171:        dateWrapper.style.textAlign = "center";
172:        dateWrapper.style.paddingBottom = "15px";
173:        wrapper.appendChild(dateWrapper);             <===== that line
174:        wrapper.appendChild(clockCircle);
175:    } else {

It will only affect the analog clock when used as a separate module as a single clock.

KirAsh4

I should point out that this is just a temporary thing, so you can get rid of it. The updated code will give you a config option to disable it, show it above, or below the clock.

KirAsh4

@pugsly, I forgot to mention this: new code has been added to the 'develop' branch that allows you to turn off the date display when using the module in analog mode only. Options are 'top' (default) to have it displayed at the top of the clock, 'bottom' to show it on the bottom, or 'false' to completely turn it off.

trividar

someone know why this happend to me after updating MM:
alt text
everything looks fine just the analag clock.

nagaculun

@trividar said in Analog + Digital Clock module:

someone know why this happend to me after updating MM:

everything looks fine just the analag clock.

Happened to me too. It was fine yesterday.

nobita

@nagaculun you can adjust resize analogSize: “200px”, to smaller ex 150px

nagaculun

@nobita it works. Thanks

trividar

@nobita with max. 300px it works, but before the update I had 550px and it works also but no more. Do someone know why?

MichMich

Should be fixed in the develop branch now: https://github.com/MichMich/MagicMirror/issues/611#issuecomment-272714388