<Swing Dev> [9] Review Request for 8130892: Test javax/swing/plaf/basic/BasicTextUI/8001470/bug8001470.java fails in Solaris Sparcv9
Semyon Sadetsky
semyon.sadetsky at oracle.com
Mon Aug 3 13:58:27 UTC 2015
The bug's test case passes OSX even without this fix.
The test I sent here just for indication that negative size problem is
more general and does not related to the specific XWindow frame peer.
If you read this thread from beginning, in his review Alexander
suggested to use very exact frame size for the initial frame layouting,
but it cannot be predicted with 100% probability because it is set by WM.
--Semyon
On 8/3/2015 4:23 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
> On 27.07.15 16:32, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
>> Alexander,
>> you can run the next test on Windows which sets the right frame size
>> and see that it fails because of the negative size.
> This test always fail on macosx even after the fix(the hight is zero),
> It fails even if I change the component to JButton. So does the actual
> problem in the BasicTextUI? Interesting is that in both cases the
> components are painted correctly, but the getHeight return incorrect
> value.
>>
>> import javax.swing.*;
>> import javax.swing.border.EmptyBorder;
>> import java.awt.*;
>>
>> public class bug8001470 {
>>
>> private static JFrame frame;
>> private static JTextField textField1;
>> private static JTextField textField2;
>>
>> public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
>> SwingUtilities.invokeAndWait(new Runnable() {
>> @Override
>> public void run() {
>> frame = new JFrame("JTextField Test");
>> frame.setDefaultCloseOperation(JFrame.EXIT_ON_CLOSE);
>>
>> JPanel container = (JPanel) frame.getContentPane();
>> container.setLayout(new GridLayout(2,1));
>>
>> textField1 = new JTextField("\u0e01");
>> textField2 = new JTextField("\u0c01");
>> JPanel panel = new JPanel();
>> BorderLayout mgr = new BorderLayout();
>> panel.setLayout(mgr);
>> container.add(panel);
>> panel.setBorder(new EmptyBorder(100, 100, 100, 100));
>> panel.add(textField1);
>> panel.add(textField2);
>> frame.setVisible(true);
>> frame.pack();
>> }
>> });
>> if( textField1.getHeight() < 10 || textField2.getHeight() < 10 )
>> throw new Exception("Wrong field height");
>> System.out.println("ok");
>> SwingUtilities.invokeLater(new Runnable() {
>> @Override
>> public void run() {
>> frame.dispose();
>> }
>> });
>> }
>> }
>>
>> --Semyon
>>
>>
>> On 7/27/2015 2:52 PM, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
>>> -Alexander Yarmoliskiy
>>> +Alexander Zvegintsev
>>>
>>> On 7/27/2015 2:36 PM, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
>>>> It is probably an issue, but even if fix it we cannot guarantee
>>>> that insets will be always less then the resulting frame size.
>>>> Method guessInsets() which obtains insets in frame's peer is hinting.
>>>> And again layout manager is able to apply negative size to
>>>> container regardless the frame size.
>>>>
>>>> --Semyon
>>>>
>>>> On 7/27/2015 1:38 PM, Alexander Scherbatiy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I see that sun.awt.X11.WindowDimensions class takes insets into
>>>>> account and sets window size bigger than insets size. It looks
>>>>> like difference between windows size and insets should be positive
>>>>> in this case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Alexandr.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7/27/2015 9:56 AM, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
>>>>>> Your expectation is not correct because if insets are set for a
>>>>>> container then its child components can receive negative size
>>>>>> even if the parent size is positive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Semyon
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/24/2015 7:09 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
>>>>>>> On 23.07.15 16:06, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
>>>>>>>> Peer validation doesn't make any sense until layout manager may
>>>>>>>> easily set negative size for any component using
>>>>>>>> Component.setBounds(). That happens this issue particularly.
>>>>>>> In your first request you mention that the problem occurs when
>>>>>>> "On Linux and Solaris platforms the initial frame window width
>>>>>>> and height can be negative".
>>>>>>> My expectation is that: if the window size if >=0 then none of
>>>>>>> the layout managers should set negative value for width/height, no?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So we need either to introduce the size constraint and fix the
>>>>>>>> general issue either make UI to be prepared to get negative
>>>>>>>> size occasionally i.e. fix the particular case (what is done in
>>>>>>>> the solution).
>>>>>>>> Which option are you suggesting?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --Semyon
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/23/2015 2:06 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 23.07.15 9:22, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> O.K. It sounds like a generic rule. Can I add this constant
>>>>>>>>>> to the Component.reshape()?
>>>>>>>>> Historically our components have a lack of any data validation
>>>>>>>>> because the user was able to call peers methods directly. I
>>>>>>>>> assume that such validation should exists already in the peers
>>>>>>>>> classes(like XBaseWindow.xSetBounds()).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --Semyon
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/22/2015 3:40 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> It seems that the bug is in fact that the size of the window
>>>>>>>>>>> is negative. In a lot of place we assume that it should be >=0.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 22.07.15 14:28, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In setVisible(true) if size is not specified and pack has
>>>>>>>>>>>> not been called yet frame get some initial size depending
>>>>>>>>>>>> on the platform.
>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the purpose of the test : to call pack() after
>>>>>>>>>>>> setVisible().
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --Semyon
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/22/2015 2:03 PM, Alexander Scherbatiy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/17/2015 5:32 PM, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please review fix for JDK9:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8130892
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> webrev:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ssadetsky/8130892/webrev.00/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Linux and Solaris platforms the initial frame window
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> width and height can be negative. So the root view is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initialization trigger was updated to take negative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values into account. The fix was tested on Ubuntu 12,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OEL7 and Solaris 11.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks strange that the test which does not set
>>>>>>>>>>>>> explicit bounds and calls frame.pack() encounters into
>>>>>>>>>>>>> negative sizes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In which place does the frame window obtain negative
>>>>>>>>>>>>> width and height?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexandr.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Semyon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Best regards, Sergey.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/swing-dev/attachments/20150803/e883bb8b/attachment.html>
More information about the swing-dev
mailing list