Re: RFR: 8090123: Items are no longer visible when collection is changed
On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 12:33:31 GMT, Karthik P K wrote: > When a large number of items were scrolled in the `ChoiceBox`, the scrolled > offset was carried forward when the list is replaced with small number of > items. Hence the scroll up arrow was displayed with empty popup. > > Changed code to scroll to top before popup display when content height of > `ChoiceBox` is smaller than the scrolled offset. > > Added system test to validate the fix. FYI: added ChoiceBox to the monkey tester https://github.com/andy-goryachev-oracle/Test/blob/main/src/goryachev/monkey/MonkeyTesterApp.java - PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1039
Re: RFR: 8090123: Items are no longer visible when collection is changed
On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 14:19:15 GMT, Karthik P K wrote:
>> modules/javafx.controls/src/main/java/com/sun/javafx/scene/control/ContextMenuContent.java
>> line 827:
>>
>>> 825:
>>> 826: boolean isDownArrowVisible() {
>>> 827: return upArrow.isVisible();
>>
>> Just to double-check, shouldn't this be `downArrow.isVisible()`?
>
> Yes it should be `downArrow.isVisible()`. I'll update the code.
While this is a simple change, I thought of adding more checks on the
visibility of both up and down arrow in the test to avoid these types of error
in code. I'm seeing a strange issue that, I'm getting failures when more than 4
`Assert.assertTrue/assertFalse` statements are added. I'll investigate more on
this and then update the code.
-
PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1039
Integrated: 8284662: [Win][Accessibility][ListCell] Screen reader fails to read ListView/ComboBox item count if > 100
On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 08:56:58 GMT, Ambarish Rapte wrote: > Accessibility client applications like Windows Narrator and JAWS read > positions of the items in a ListView/ComboBox as "index of total-item-count". > For example, in an ComboBox with 10 items, first item "Item1" would be read > as "Item one, one of ten". Similarly it appends the of > for all items. > > Currently this is not read correctly, > - by Narrator if total number of items is > 100 > - by JAWS if total number of items is > 200 > > One main reason is that JavaFX is not serving request from A11Y client > applications for UIA_PositionInSetPropertyId and UIA_SizeOfSetPropertyId > properties. > > Serving request for these properties fixes the issue. > > Verification: > There are two test programs (for ComboBox and ListView) attached to > [JDK-8284662](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8284662) > Please run those and observe how Narrator reads them with and without fix. This pull request has now been integrated. Changeset: 21aa630a Author:Ambarish Rapte URL: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/commit/21aa630a0cb956de9641574676adfe114609f666 Stats: 29 lines in 1 file changed: 29 ins; 0 del; 0 mod 8284662: [Win][Accessibility][ListCell] Screen reader fails to read ListView/ComboBox item count if > 100 Reviewed-by: kcr, aghaisas - PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1036
Re: RFR: 8284662: [Win][Accessibility][ListCell] Screen reader fails to read ListView/ComboBox item count if > 100
On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 08:56:58 GMT, Ambarish Rapte wrote: > Accessibility client applications like Windows Narrator and JAWS read > positions of the items in a ListView/ComboBox as "index of total-item-count". > For example, in an ComboBox with 10 items, first item "Item1" would be read > as "Item one, one of ten". Similarly it appends the of > for all items. > > Currently this is not read correctly, > - by Narrator if total number of items is > 100 > - by JAWS if total number of items is > 200 > > One main reason is that JavaFX is not serving request from A11Y client > applications for UIA_PositionInSetPropertyId and UIA_SizeOfSetPropertyId > properties. > > Serving request for these properties fixes the issue. > > Verification: > There are two test programs (for ComboBox and ListView) attached to > [JDK-8284662](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8284662) > Please run those and observe how Narrator reads them with and without fix. Tested only with Narrator. Fix looks good! - Marked as reviewed by aghaisas (Reviewer). PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1036
Re: RFR: 8090123: Items are no longer visible when collection is changed
On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 13:37:51 GMT, Lukasz Kostyra wrote:
>> When a large number of items were scrolled in the `ChoiceBox`, the scrolled
>> offset was carried forward when the list is replaced with small number of
>> items. Hence the scroll up arrow was displayed with empty popup.
>>
>> Changed code to scroll to top before popup display when content height of
>> `ChoiceBox` is smaller than the scrolled offset.
>>
>> Added system test to validate the fix.
>
> modules/javafx.controls/src/main/java/com/sun/javafx/scene/control/ContextMenuContent.java
> line 827:
>
>> 825:
>> 826: boolean isDownArrowVisible() {
>> 827: return upArrow.isVisible();
>
> Just to double-check, shouldn't this be `downArrow.isVisible()`?
Yes it should be `downArrow.isVisible()`. I'll update the code.
-
PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1039
Re: RFR: 8284662: [Win][Accessibility][ListCell] Screen reader fails to read ListView/ComboBox item count if > 100
On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 08:56:58 GMT, Ambarish Rapte wrote: > Accessibility client applications like Windows Narrator and JAWS read > positions of the items in a ListView/ComboBox as "index of total-item-count". > For example, in an ComboBox with 10 items, first item "Item1" would be read > as "Item one, one of ten". Similarly it appends the of > for all items. > > Currently this is not read correctly, > - by Narrator if total number of items is > 100 > - by JAWS if total number of items is > 200 > > One main reason is that JavaFX is not serving request from A11Y client > applications for UIA_PositionInSetPropertyId and UIA_SizeOfSetPropertyId > properties. > > Serving request for these properties fixes the issue. > > Verification: > There are two test programs (for ComboBox and ListView) attached to > [JDK-8284662](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8284662) > Please run those and observe how Narrator reads them with and without fix. @aghaisas can you be the second reviewer? - PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1036
Re: RFR: 8090123: Items are no longer visible when collection is changed
On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 12:33:31 GMT, Karthik P K wrote:
> When a large number of items were scrolled in the `ChoiceBox`, the scrolled
> offset was carried forward when the list is replaced with small number of
> items. Hence the scroll up arrow was displayed with empty popup.
>
> Changed code to scroll to top before popup display when content height of
> `ChoiceBox` is smaller than the scrolled offset.
>
> Added system test to validate the fix.
modules/javafx.controls/src/main/java/com/sun/javafx/scene/control/ContextMenuContent.java
line 827:
> 825:
> 826: boolean isDownArrowVisible() {
> 827: return upArrow.isVisible();
Just to double-check, shouldn't this be `downArrow.isVisible()`?
-
PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1039
Re: RFR: 8260528: Clean glass-gtk sizing and positioning code [v48]
On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 03:19:55 GMT, Thiago Milczarek Sayao wrote: >> This cleans size and positioning code, reducing special cases, code >> complexity and size. >> >> Changes: >> >> - cached extents: 28, 1, 1, 1 are old defaults - modern gnome uses different >> sizes. It does not assume any size because it varies - it does cache because >> it's unlikely to vary on the same system - but if it does occur, it will >> only waste a resize event. >> - window geometry, min/max size are centralized in >> `update_window_constraints`; >> - Frame extents (the window decoration size used for "total window size"): >> - frame extents are received in `process_property_notify`; >> - removed quirks in java code; >> - When received, call `set_bounds` again to adjust the size (to account >> decorations later received); >> - Removed `activate_window` because it's the same as focusing the window. >> `gtk_window_present` will deiconify and focus it. >> - `ensure_window_size` was a quirk - removed; >> - `requested_bounds` removed - not used anymore; >> - `window_configure` incorporated in `set_bounds` with `gtk_window_move` and >> `gtk_window_resize`; >> - `process_net_wm_property` is a work-around for Unity only (added a check >> if Unity - but it can probably be removed at some point) >> - `restack` split in `to_front()` and `to_back()` to conform to managed code; >> - Set `gtk_window_set_focus_on_map` to FALSE because if TRUE the Window >> Manager changes the window ordering in the "focus stealing" mechanism - this >> makes possible to remove the quirk on `request_focus()`; >> - Note: `geometry_get_*` and `geometry_set_*` moved location but unchanged. > > Thiago Milczarek Sayao has updated the pull request incrementally with two > additional commits since the last revision: > > - Fix black header glitch > - Fix black header glitch It's not 100% right yet, there's a failing test. - PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/915
Re: [jfx17u] RFR: 8302470: Change JBS version in .jcheck/conf to jfxNN[.0.MM]
On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 12:57:39 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote: > In support of the JBS version change from "openjfxNN[.0.MM]" to > "jfxNN[.0.MM]", we need to update the JBS version in .jcheck/conf in each > active code line. > > The planned cut-over date is Tuesday, Feb 28. I will integrate this PR > immediately after the JBS version renaming is done. Marked as reviewed by arapte (Reviewer). - PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx17u/pull/114
Re: RFR: 8302470: Change JBS version in .jcheck/conf to jfxNN[.0.MM]
On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 12:57:22 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote: > In support of the JBS version change from "openjfxNN[.0.MM]" to > "jfxNN[.0.MM]", we need to update the JBS version in .jcheck/conf in each > active code line. > > The planned cut-over date is Tuesday, Feb 28. I will integrate this PR > immediately after the JBS version renaming is done. > > NOTE: I also created a separate PR #1034 targeted to `jfx20`. This is a > necessary exception to the usual rule where a fix goes into one or the other. > In this case it needs to go into both so that they can be integrated > immediately after the version change. The merge will have conflicts anyway, > since the JBS fix versions are already different in the two branches, and > doing it this way will allow a trivial resolution of the eventual merge > conflict (which doesn't then have to be done urgently). Marked as reviewed by arapte (Reviewer). - PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1035
Re: [jfx11u] RFR: 8302470: Change JBS version in .jcheck/conf to jfxNN[.0.MM]
On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 12:59:47 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote: > In support of the JBS version change from "openjfxNN[.0.MM]" to > "jfxNN[.0.MM]", we need to update the JBS version in .jcheck/conf in each > active code line. > > The planned cut-over date is Tuesday, Feb 28. I will integrate this PR > immediately after the JBS version renaming is done. Marked as reviewed by arapte (Reviewer). - PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx11u/pull/134
Re: [jfx20] RFR: 8302470: Change JBS version in .jcheck/conf to jfxNN[.0.MM]
On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 12:56:57 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote: > In support of the JBS version change from "openjfxNN[.0.MM]" to > "jfxNN[.0.MM]", we need to update the JBS version in .jcheck/conf in each > active code line. > > The planned cut-over date is Tuesday, Feb 28. I will integrate this PR > immediately after the JBS version renaming is done. > > NOTE: This PR is targeted to `jfx20`. I also created a separate PR targeted > to `master`. This is a necessary exception to the usual rule where a fix goes > into one or the other. In this case it needs to go into both so that they can > be integrated immediately after the version change. The merge will have > conflicts anyway, since the JBS fix versions are already different in the two > branches, and doing it this way will allow a trivial resolution of the > eventual merge conflict (which doesn't then have to be done urgently). Marked as reviewed by arapte (Reviewer). - PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1034
Integrated: 8302684 : Cherry-pick WebKit 615.1 stabilization fixes (2)
On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 19:29:26 GMT, Hima Bindu Meda wrote: > Stabilization fixes from Webkitgtk-2.38.5. > Verified drt and unit tests. No issues observed. This pull request has now been integrated. Changeset: 67c2b7a1 Author:Hima Bindu Meda Committer: Kevin Rushforth URL: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/commit/67c2b7a13b5d3378c1006b8fd3af28aa8eb49c25 Stats: 34 lines in 14 files changed: 18 ins; 1 del; 15 mod 8302684: Cherry-pick WebKit 615.1 stabilization fixes (2) Reviewed-by: kcr, sykora - PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1038
RFR: 8090123: Items are no longer visible when collection is changed
When a large number of items were scrolled in the `ChoiceBox`, the scrolled offset was carried forward when the list is replaced with small number of items. Hence the scroll up arrow was displayed with empty popup. Changed code to scroll to top before popup display when content height of `ChoiceBox` is smaller than the scrolled offset. Added system test to validate the fix. - Commit messages: - Adding blank line after comment - ChoiceBox items display issue fix Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1039/files Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jfx&pr=1039&range=00 Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8090123 Stats: 199 lines in 3 files changed: 199 ins; 0 del; 0 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1039.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jfx pull/1039/head:pull/1039 PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1039
Re: RFR: 8302684 : Cherry-pick WebKit 615.1 stabilization fixes (2)
On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 19:29:26 GMT, Hima Bindu Meda wrote: > Stabilization fixes from Webkitgtk-2.38.5. > Verified drt and unit tests. No issues observed. Building and testing completed without issues. - Marked as reviewed by sykora (Author). PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1038
Re: CFV: New OpenJFX Reviewer: Jose Pereda
Vote: yes Zitat von Kevin Rushforth : I hereby nominate Jose Pereda [1] to OpenJFX Reviewer. Jose is an OpenJFX community member, who has contributed 59 commits [2][3] to OpenJFX. Votes are due by March 2, 2023 at 23:59 UTC. Only current OpenJFX Reviewers [4] are eligible to vote on this nomination. Votes must be cast in the open by replying to this mailing list. For Three-Vote Consensus voting instructions, see [5]. Nomination to a project Reviewer is described in [6]. Thanks. -- Kevin [1] https://openjdk.org/census#jpereda [2] https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/search?q=author-email%3Ajpereda%40openjdk.org&s=author-date&type=Commits [3] https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/search?q=author-email%3Ajose.pereda%40gluonhq.com&s=author-date&type=Commits [4] https://openjdk.java.net/census#openjfx [5] https://openjdk.java.net/bylaws#three-vote-consensus [6] https://openjdk.java.net/projects#project-reviewer
Re: RFR: 8302472 WebColorFieldSkin should use precompiled Pattern
On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 16:12:29 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote: > Split off from https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/837 > > This uses a precompiled regex pattern and cleans up the code in > WebColorFieldSkin a bit. This looks good! - Marked as reviewed by aghaisas (Reviewer). PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1032
Re: CFV: New OpenJFX Reviewer: Jose Pereda
Vote: Yes On 17/02/2023 00:24, Kevin Rushforth wrote: I hereby nominate Jose Pereda [1] to OpenJFX Reviewer. Jose is an OpenJFX community member, who has contributed 59 commits [2][3] to OpenJFX. Votes are due by March 2, 2023 at 23:59 UTC. Only current OpenJFX Reviewers [4] are eligible to vote on this nomination. Votes must be cast in the open by replying to this mailing list. For Three-Vote Consensus voting instructions, see [5]. Nomination to a project Reviewer is described in [6]. Thanks. -- Kevin [1] https://openjdk.org/census#jpereda [2] https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/search?q=author-email%3Ajpereda%40openjdk.org&s=author-date&type=Commits [3] https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/search?q=author-email%3Ajose.pereda%40gluonhq.com&s=author-date&type=Commits [4] https://openjdk.java.net/census#openjfx [5] https://openjdk.java.net/bylaws#three-vote-consensus [6] https://openjdk.java.net/projects#project-reviewer
Re: CFV: New OpenJFX Reviewer: Jose Pereda
Vote : YES Regards, Ajit > On 17-Feb-2023, at 4:54 AM, Kevin Rushforth > wrote: > > I hereby nominate Jose Pereda [1] to OpenJFX Reviewer. > > Jose is an OpenJFX community member, who has contributed 59 commits [2][3] to > OpenJFX. > > Votes are due by March 2, 2023 at 23:59 UTC. > > Only current OpenJFX Reviewers [4] are eligible to vote on this nomination. > Votes must be cast in the open by replying to this mailing list. > > For Three-Vote Consensus voting instructions, see [5]. Nomination to a > project Reviewer is described in [6]. > > Thanks. > > -- Kevin > > > [1] https://openjdk.org/census#jpereda > > [2] > https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/search?q=author-email%3Ajpereda%40openjdk.org&s=author-date&type=Commits > > [3] > https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/search?q=author-email%3Ajose.pereda%40gluonhq.com&s=author-date&type=Commits > > [4] https://openjdk.java.net/census#openjfx > > [5] https://openjdk.java.net/bylaws#three-vote-consensus > > [6] https://openjdk.java.net/projects#project-reviewer >
Re: CFV: New OpenJFX Reviewer: Jose Pereda
Vote: Yes On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 12:25 AM Kevin Rushforth wrote: > I hereby nominate Jose Pereda [1] to OpenJFX Reviewer. > > Jose is an OpenJFX community member, who has contributed 59 commits > [2][3] to OpenJFX. > > Votes are due by March 2, 2023 at 23:59 UTC. > > Only current OpenJFX Reviewers [4] are eligible to vote on this > nomination. Votes must be cast in the open by replying to this mailing > list. > > For Three-Vote Consensus voting instructions, see [5]. Nomination to a > project Reviewer is described in [6]. > > Thanks. > > -- Kevin > > > [1] https://openjdk.org/census#jpereda > > [2] > > https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/search?q=author-email%3Ajpereda%40openjdk.org&s=author-date&type=Commits > > [3] > > https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/search?q=author-email%3Ajose.pereda%40gluonhq.com&s=author-date&type=Commits > > [4] https://openjdk.java.net/census#openjfx > > [5] https://openjdk.java.net/bylaws#three-vote-consensus > > [6] https://openjdk.java.net/projects#project-reviewer > >
Re: CFV: New OpenJFX Reviewer: Jose Pereda
Vote: Yes On Fri, Feb 17, 2023, 04:54 Philip Race wrote: > Vote: yes > > -phil > >
