On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 05:52:46 GMT, vtstydev wrote:
> More correct way to take in consideration nonzero PHYSICALOFFSETX,
> PHYSICALOFFSETY of device for banded-raster printing loop. Only on Windows
> platform under certain conditions real device prints shifted image on paper.
This pul
> More correct way to take in consideration nonzero PHYSICALOFFSETX,
> PHYSICALOFFSETY of device for banded-raster printing loop. Only on Windows
> platform under certain conditions real device prints shifted image on paper.
vtstydev has updated the pull request incrementally
> More correct way to take in consideration nonzero PHYSICALOFFSETX,
> PHYSICALOFFSETY of device for banded-raster printing loop. Only on Windows
> platform under certain conditions real device prints shifted image on paper.
vtstydev has updated the pull request incrementally
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 20:02:21 GMT, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
>> vtstydev has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Done requested fixes 4
>
> test/jdk/java/awt/print/PrinterJob/ImagePrinting/AlphaPr
> More correct way to take in consideration nonzero PHYSICALOFFSETX,
> PHYSICALOFFSETY of device for banded-raster printing loop. Only on Windows
> platform under certain conditions real device prints shifted image on paper.
vtstydev has updated the pull request incrementally
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 03:21:44 GMT, Phil Race wrote:
>> vtstydev has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional
>> commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Remove trailing whitespace
>> - Done requested fixes 2
>
>> > Revert the changes
> More correct way to take in consideration nonzero PHYSICALOFFSETX,
> PHYSICALOFFSETY of device for banded-raster printing loop. Only on Windows
> platform under certain conditions real device prints shifted image on paper.
vtstydev has updated the pull request incrementally
On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 13:34:47 GMT, Phil Race wrote:
> Revert the changes to the test which limit the pages printed out.
> The test MUST print all orientations and MUST always print both opaque and
> alpha
> 95% of the point of this test is to ensure consistency across all cases and
> if it doesn'
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 08:47:44 GMT, Prasanta Sadhukhan
wrote:
> I guess you can add `8-bp` label to JBS for appropriate team to pick the fix
> and apply to jdk8u repo...
Contributors has no accounts in JBS according OpenJDK Developers’ Guide. At
least author role and above allows it
Unfortunatel
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 04:54:13 GMT, Prasanta Sadhukhan
wrote:
>>> Also, is there any need of drawing the inner rectangle if there will not be
>>> any differences to it...it will be less confusing for the tester
>>
>> I need to draw something with opacity and something with transparency
>> colors
> More correct way to take in consideration nonzero PHYSICALOFFSETX,
> PHYSICALOFFSETY of device for banded-raster printing loop. Only on Windows
> platform under certain conditions real device prints shifted image on paper.
vtstydev has updated the pull request incrementally
> More correct way to take in consideration nonzero PHYSICALOFFSETX,
> PHYSICALOFFSETY of device for banded-raster printing loop. Only on Windows
> platform under certain conditions real device prints shifted image on paper.
vtstydev has updated the pull request incrementally
> More correct way to take in consideration nonzero PHYSICALOFFSETX,
> PHYSICALOFFSETY of device for banded-raster printing loop. Only on Windows
> platform under certain conditions real device prints shifted image on paper.
vtstydev has updated the pull request incrementally
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 09:53:09 GMT, Prasanta Sadhukhan
wrote:
> Also, is there any need of drawing the inner rectangle if there will not be
> any differences to it...it will be less confusing for the tester
I need to draw something with opacity and something with transparency colors,
otherwise
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 08:26:51 GMT, Prasanta Sadhukhan
wrote:
> Only difference I noticed is in **margin rectangle** for "Landscape-Alpha"
> and "Reverse Landscape- Alpha" page 4 and 6 namely
It's the essence of this bug. In printout-withoutfix (4 and 6 page)aren't seen
all margins.
If I repl
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 04:35:02 GMT, Prasanta Sadhukhan
wrote:
>> vtstydev has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Fix header and imports section in AlphaPrintingOffsets
>
> test/jdk/java/awt/
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 04:44:31 GMT, Prasanta Sadhukhan
wrote:
> > Only on Windows platform under certain conditions real device prints
> > shifted image on paper.
>
> Also, if it affects only windows platform, will it not be more advisable to
> do in WPrinterJob class instead of RasterPrinterJo
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 04:32:50 GMT, Prasanta Sadhukhan
wrote:
>> vtstydev has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Fix header and imports section in AlphaPrintingOffsets
>
> src/java.d
> More correct way to take in consideration nonzero PHYSICALOFFSETX,
> PHYSICALOFFSETY of device for banded-raster printing loop. Only on Windows
> platform under certain conditions real device prints shifted image on paper.
vtstydev has updated the pull request incrementally
> More correct way to take in consideration nonzero PHYSICALOFFSETX,
> PHYSICALOFFSETY of device for banded-raster printing loop. Only on Windows
> platform under certain conditions real device prints shifted image on paper.
vtstydev has refreshed the contents of this pull request, and
> More correct way to take in consideration nonzero PHYSICALOFFSETX,
> PHYSICALOFFSETY of device for banded-raster printing loop. Only on Windows
> platform under certain conditions real device prints shifted image on paper.
vtstydev has updated the pull request incrementally
On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 21:55:31 GMT, Phil Race wrote:
>> More correct way to take in consideration nonzero PHYSICALOFFSETX,
>> PHYSICALOFFSETY of device for banded-raster printing loop. Only on Windows
>> platform under certain conditions real device prints shifted image on paper.
>
> The PR title
> More correct way to take in consideration nonzero PHYSICALOFFSETX,
> PHYSICALOFFSETY of device for banded-raster printing loop. Only on Windows
> platform under certain conditions real device prints shifted image on paper.
vtstydev has updated the pull request with a new target base
> More correct way to take in consideration nonzero PHYSICALOFFSETX,
> PHYSICALOFFSETY of device for banded-raster printing loop. Only on Windows
> platform under certain conditions real device prints shifted image on paper.
vtstydev has updated the pull request with a new target base
> More correct way to take in consideration nonzero PHYSICALOFFSETX,
> PHYSICALOFFSETY of device for banded-raster printing loop. Only on Windows
> platform under certain conditions real device prints shifted image on paper.
vtstydev has updated the pull request with a new target base
On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 21:54:35 GMT, Phil Race wrote:
> This is going to require manual verification. Likely we'll need to test all
> possible page orientations too - did you try that ?
I printed some documents, that renders with banded-raster printing loop, both
orientations on Windows and Linux.
More correct way to take in consideration nonzero PHYSICALOFFSETX,
PHYSICALOFFSETY of device for banded-raster printing loop. Only on Windows
platform under certain conditions real device prints shifted image on paper.
-
Commit messages:
- More correct way to take in consideration
27 matches
Mail list logo
