On Sat, 18 May 2024 14:11:36 GMT, Kevin Rushforth <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> At a minimum I think the tests that are part of this PR should be included >>> in FX whichever fix ends up being integrated. >> >> The test has already been added to both PRs. >> >>> I'm only wondering if the code in ``paintImpl`` should always clear the >>> dirty bits even if an exception occurs during painting, to harden it >>> against potential bugs and not end up trying to repaint again and again >>> likely getting the same exception again and again. >> >> Hm, that can indeed happen. On the other hand, if the dirty flag is reset >> even in the case of an exception, parts of the UI may not be updated for a >> long time until a node in that area receives a change. The question is which >> of these two options is the least harmful. >> >> I'm fine with each of them. What do the others think? > >> > I'm only wondering if the code in `paintImpl` should always clear the >> > dirty bits even if an exception occurs during painting, to harden it >> > against potential bugs and not end up trying to repaint again and again >> > likely getting the same exception again and again. >> >> Hm, that can indeed happen. On the other hand, if the dirty flag is reset >> even in the case of an exception, parts of the UI may not be updated for a >> long time until a node in that area receives a change. The question is which >> of these two options is the least harmful. >> >> I'm fine with each of them. What do the others think? > > I'd probably lean towards addressing this in a follow-up issue, if there > turns out to be a need. > > @arapte can you look at this when you review it? @kevinrushforth The build fails on Linux. Can you please take a look? ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1451#issuecomment-2196559621
