Hi Ajit,
yes, I read the doc, probably a bit differently - could well be my
misunderstanding and misunderstandable wording :)
Trying again:
- I read your suggestion (in
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8242553) to imply f.i. that
being at value and incrementing a full-cycle (that is max -min +1), I
will land on value again
- for me the doc seemed to imply that in such a case I would land on
min. Though, given the "circular" as you pointed out correctly, was my
misunderstanding
- the current implementation is buggy
(https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8193286) in calculating the
remainder (which is what the first bullet amounts to) incorrectly for
min != 0
Where do I err?
-- Jeanette
Zitat von Ajit Ghaisas <ajit.ghai...@oracle.com>:
Hi Jeanette,
The doc never assumes amountPerStep = 1. I am quoting it here -
“The wrapAround property is used to specify whether the value
factory should be circular. For example, should an integer-based
value model increment from the maximum value back to the minimum
value (and vice versa).”
The word “circular” clarifies that once we exceed maximum value, we
should start from minimum.
I think, the doc is OK in it’s current form, but implementation
needs to be corrected.
Regards,
Ajit
On 14-Apr-2020, at 8:01 PM, Jeanette Winzenburg
<faste...@swingempire.de> wrote:
Hi Ajit,
thought the doc was simply bad (in specifying the behavior for
amountPerStep = 1 and not thinking of larger amounts) - my
expection is a calculated wrap, that is the target as you suggest
via modulo the difference from current value. Don't know if anybody
took the doc literally ..
-- Jeanette
Zitat von Ajit Ghaisas <ajit.ghai...@oracle.com>:
Hi,
Once I fix JDK-8193286, I would like to take up JDK-8242553
(IntegerSpinner does not wrap around values correctly if
amountToStepBy is larger than total numbers between Max and Min)
The current implementation is not as per what is documented.
Refer :
https://openjfx.io/javadoc/14/javafx.controls/javafx/scene/control/SpinnerValueFactory.html#wrapAroundProperty
I propose to fix the current buggy behavior of IntegerSpinner.
Although it is a corner case, I would like to know if anybody
relies on this buggy behavior?
Regards,
Ajit
