On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 10:03:20 GMT, Jeanette Winzenburg <faste...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> @kleopatra Thanks for checking. >> >> As discussed in the JBS issue, there is a call in >> `CheckBoxSkin::layoutChildren` that, probably by mistake, calls `snapSizeX` >> twice, and that gives different results when a different UI scale is used. >> >> This PR applies to the snapSizeXX methods, so it is guaranteed that >> `snapSizeXX(snapSizeXX(a)) == snapSizeXX(a)`. With the included test, _this_ >> issue should now be fixed. >> >> However, you are totally right, the CheckBox test from the JBS issue only >> works fine with this PR either if `Stage::sizeToScene` is called or if the >> Scene is created with a defined width, so we still have another issue laying >> around. >> >> Running the CheckBox test on Windows with 1.75% UI scale and without calling >> `sizeToScene`, produces this log of width and height values: >> >> Scene::resizeRootOnSceneSizeChange 256.0, 33.0 >> ... >> Scene::resizeRootOnSceneSizeChange 256.0, 33.0 >> ... >> // WindowEvent.RESIZE event UI scale 1.75 >> ... >> Scene::resizeRootOnSceneSizeChange 256.0, 33.14285659790039 >> >> Both values should be snapped, as these are generated with snap methods in >> HBox. However, this is not the case for height, as there are some >> conversions in between: This 33.14285659790039 value comes from an int >> (`View`: height = (int) (33.0 x 1.75) = 58) to float (`TKSceneListener`: h = >> 33.142857) to double (`Scene` width = 33.14285659790039). However, the >> proper snapped value should be 33.14285714285714. >> >> However, if we add a call to `stage.sizeToScene()`, then the log is: >> >> Scene::resizeRootOnSceneSizeChange 256.0, 33.0 >> ... >> Scene::resizeRootOnSceneSizeChange 256.0, 33.0 >> ... >> Scene::resizeRootOnSceneSizeChange 256.0, 33.14285659790039 >> ... >> Scene::resizeRootOnSceneSizeChange 257.1428571428571, 33.14285714285714 >> ... >> Scene::resizeRootOnSceneSizeChange 257.1428571428571, 33.14285714285714 >> ... >> both width and height have stable snapped values, and the checkbox layout is >> correct. >> >> Back to the 256.0 value of width, this value comes from margin (8.0 * 2) + >> controls width(54.0 * 4) + spacing (8.0 * 3), but the value 54.0 is not >> properly computed, as at this point the UI scale is still 1.0. >> Once the UI scale is set to 1.75 the checkBox width is 54.285714285714285, >> and the scene's width is 257.14285714285714. >> >> So the issue can be related to the UI scale value taken into account too >> late, and how this change doesn't trigger an update of the scene. >> >> Does it make sense to address this issue with the current PR? > > thanks for the additional info - good dig 👍 > > As you noted, there are two issues: > > - the implementation of the scaled snaps to make them stable (against nested > calls) BTW, any reason snappedXXInset are not scaled? > - a timing/sequence issue with applying the scale > > So might separate them out in different issues, the first with a new one with > this PR fixing it. Depends a bit on granularity of issues - personally, would > prefer it, though, if only to make snapping issues more prominent. OK, https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8255415 has been filed (and the current PR targets that issue). https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8199592 will remain open until a fix for using the correct UI scale to perform the preferred size calculations is proposed. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/336
