Hi Prasanta,
On 11/09/2017 01:56 AM, Prasanta Sadhukhan wrote:
I guess by "manual implementation", Sergey was mentioning about
programmer doing the calculation rather than using system api to do
the job for us.
Anyway, I saw using Math.ceil and no "nTabs+1", alignment does not work
This is because
For ex, if x = 66.0, tabSize = 48.0, tabBase = 0, then nTabs =
ceil(66/48) = 2 and tabStop=tabBase + ntabs * tabSize=96
Now, nextTabStop is called from Utilities.getTabbedTextWidth() in a
loop passing the same value which it gets as return value from
nextTabStop, for "x"
so x = 96.0, tabSize=48.0,ntabs = ceil(96/48)=2 and tabStop=96 again
and it go on getting same tabStop.
With
int ntabs = (int) ((x - tabBase) / tabSize);
return tabBase + ((ntabs + 1) * tabSize);
we get proper alignment
x 66.0 tabSize 48.0 ntabs 1 tabstop 96.0
x 96.0 tabSize 48.0 ntabs 2 tabstop 144.0
x 144.0 tabSize 48.0 ntabs 3 tabstop 192.0
So, I guess, as Semyon suggested, making the "result of the sentence
should be truncated to int, not its members" should be the way to go.
Lastly, could you please suggest as to how to automate this test?
I think the easiest way is to set the caret in the corresponding
position and read its coordinates.
--Semyon
Regards
Prasanta
On 11/9/2017 8:36 AM, semyon.sadet...@oracle.com wrote:
On 11/8/17 12:24 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 08/11/2017 11:38, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
Yes "(int)+1" is also can be used for positive values, but the
"ceil()" is better since this purpose of this method, and in
general it works for negative values as well.
There may not be negative values here, so Math.ceil() is redundant.
I do not see a reason why standard function can be redundant, and
why manual implementation is better. Since even in the first version
of the fix there is an issues in manual implementation.
I don't see it standard, just redundant in the case. What did you
mean under "manual implementation"?
--Semyon
--Semyon
On 11/08/2017 10:24 AM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
Hi, Prasanta.
Is it possible that dropping the float part of "tabSize" and "x"
will cause Off-by-one error? For example:
float tabSize=3.99f;
float x=21.9f;
int tabBase=0;
649 int ntabs = ((int) x - tabBase) / (int)tabSize;
650 return tabBase + ((ntabs + 1) * tabSize);
The result is: ntabs=7 -> 31.92 which is not correct.
I guess you will need something like this:
int ntabs = (int) Math.ceil((x - tabBase) / tabSize);
return tabBase + ntabs * tabSize;
The result is: ntabs=6 -> 23.94
On 08/11/2017 03:25, Prasanta Sadhukhan wrote:
Hi All,
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8187957
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psadhukhan/8187957/webrev.00/
Please review a fix for an issue where it is seen string with
"tab" in them are not aligned properly.
This is because while calculating tab stop postion, it is
calculating number of tabs in float value (an aftereffect of
JDK-8156217 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8156217>)
so next tab stop location is coming out wrong.
Fix is to use "number of tabs" as an integer value in order to
calculate the tab position correctly.
Regards
Prasanta
