Glad to hear that there is a relatively painless workaround for now.

On 20 April 2011 17:22, Brent Atkinson <[email protected]> wrote:

> Chris,
>
> I'll definitely create a JIRA issue. It looks like the branch handlers
> are not installed on the empty branches. I looked at when these are
> installed (in monitorBranches(), which is called during
> setBranchExpanded). So, I found a work-around. I call
> setBranchExpanded on the empty branches before I add the first item.
> This causes the BranchHandler to be installed which means that the
> insertion is picked up by the TreeView (and the Skin).
>
> Brent
>
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Chris Bartlett <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Brent,
> > It sounds like you have found the problem.
> >
> > Thanks for checking the repaint side of things.  That certainly seems to
> suggest that it is a problem with the internal state rather than merely a
> painting / invalidation issue as you say.
> > If you open a JIRA ticket, please include the info from your
> investigation for completeness. Alternatively, find this thread on the
> Nabble archive and include a link to it.
> > http://apache-pivot-users.399431.n3.nabble.com/
> > If you are willing and able to fix this yourself, bear in mind that we
> welcome patch submissions!
> > Chris
> > On 20 April 2011 16:17, Brent Atkinson <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes,
> >>
> >> I just tried that, and it appears that it's not just a invalidation
> problem. It appears that the empty branch isn't treated like a branch at
> all. From what I can tell, the tree doesn't install a BranchHandler as a
> listener on an empty list. I tested this by dragging and dropping the node
> (which results in a remove/add at the same Path). I am able to see the tree
> call the removal and insert event handlers. In the insert event handler it
> installs the BranchHandler in the node's listener list... after which
> everything works normally.
> >>
> >> Brent
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Chris Bartlett <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> That sounds like a bug, but I am not in a position to check at the
> moment.
> >>> Did you try resizing the OS window to force a complete repaint?
> >>> Could you put together a simple example that demonstrates the issue,
> and then create a JIRA ticket with the example as an attachment?
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIVOT
> >>> Chris
> >>> On 20 April 2011 15:55, Brent Atkinson <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> The exact behavior is that nothing happens when something is added to
> the branch. I expected that the events would cause the branch node to be
> rendered as a branch node with controls when something was added.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm stepping through it, and it actually looks like the listener list
> is empty for the empty branch.
> >>>>
> >>>> Brent
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Chris Bartlett <
> [email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Brent,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What happens exactly?  Are you getting exceptions thrown?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is it that the TreeView doesn't render the branch control for the
> branch that used to be 'empty; but now has a child?  If so, does the
> TreeView update correctly later on if the native OS window housing Pivot is
> repainted?  (Perhaps when the window is resized or loses & regains focus)
> >>>>> Chris
> >>>>> On 20 April 2011 15:27, Brent Atkinson <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm having an issue with a TreeView updating the branch controls
> when an element is added to an empty branch. The problem occurs when using
> the following style definition. The style renders properly initially, but
> appears to fail to update when adding elements to the treeData.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <TreeView bxml:id="aTree" styles="{showEmptyBranchControls:false}">
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>> </TreeView>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The branches appear to be notifying on insertion and removal
> properly because the tree works fine without the above style definition.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Any ideas why this would be happening?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Brent
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>

Reply via email to