Nodes are not rendered after window resize

[Eduard Sedov]

Hello Christopher,

You can try to pass the following parameter to jvm:

-Dprism.dirtyregioncount=1

If it helps, then it's probably the same bug that was fixed in this pull request:

https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/1451

- eduard


Am 25. Aug. 2024, 13:43, um 13:43, Christopher Schnick <crschnick at xpipe.io> schrieb:
>Hello,
>
>so it seems like there is a rare bug in JavaFX (at least on Windows)
>where after a resize operation, some controls are rendered as white
>boxes. I had this issue on the latest JavaFX 24 ea build on Windows 10.
>
>There were no exceptions thrown or methods called from a non-platform
>thread. I was not able to reproduce this consistently so far. I would
>argue it happens around every 50 runs of an application for me.
>
>There were a couple of posts with videos of the problem:
>-
>https://www.reddit.com/r/JavaFX/comments/1bvdeny/random_portions_of_the_ui_flashing_white_no/
>-
>https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2023-November/043584.html
>
>(I wrongly reported it as a toolbar bug, it seems to be a more general
>one)
>
>I can sometimes enter this state shown in the videos by resizing a
>stage
>from for example 1280x720, to fullscreen, back to 1280x720, and to
>fullscreen again. It seems like the renderer dimensions become broken
>in
>some cases and are no longer updated on consecutive scene resize
>operations, so they always stay on an old value. If in this case the
>scene fits into a stage with size 1280x720 and is resized to
>fullscreen,
>any nodes outside the old scene bounds are rendered as these white
>artifacts, presumably because the renderer thinks that they are not
>visible. It seems like the renderer thinks they are outside the
>scene/stage because it still has the old scene dimensions. I was not
>able to get the application out of this invalid state without
>restarting it.
>
>If anyone could advise me on what kind of properties I can pass to
>JavaFX or what kind of actions I can do to narrow this down, that would
>
>be great.
>
>Best regards, Christopher