Proposed IntegerSpinner buggy behavior correction - JDK-8242553

Jeanette Winzenburg fastegal at
Wed Apr 15 09:23:10 UTC 2020

Hi Ajit,

yes, I read the doc, probably a bit differently - could well be my  
misunderstanding and misunderstandable wording :)

Trying again:

- I read your suggestion (in to imply f.i. that  
being at value and incrementing a full-cycle (that is max -min +1), I  
will land on value again
- for me the doc seemed to imply that in such a case I would land on  
min. Though, given the "circular" as you pointed out correctly, was my  
- the current implementation is buggy  
( in calculating the  
remainder (which is what the first bullet amounts to) incorrectly for  
min != 0

Where do I err?

-- Jeanette

Zitat von Ajit Ghaisas <ajit.ghaisas at>:

> Hi Jeanette,
> The doc never assumes amountPerStep = 1. I am quoting it here -
> “The wrapAround property is used to specify whether the value  
> factory should be circular. For example, should an integer-based  
> value model increment from the maximum value back to the minimum  
> value (and vice versa).”
> The word “circular” clarifies that once we exceed maximum value, we  
> should start from minimum.
> I think, the doc is OK in it’s current form, but implementation  
> needs to be corrected.
> Regards,
> Ajit
>> On 14-Apr-2020, at 8:01 PM, Jeanette Winzenburg  
>> <fastegal at> wrote:
>> Hi Ajit,
>> thought the doc was simply bad (in specifying the behavior for  
>> amountPerStep = 1 and not thinking of larger amounts) - my  
>> expection is a calculated wrap, that is the target as you suggest  
>> via modulo the difference from current value. Don't know if anybody  
>> took the doc literally ..
>> -- Jeanette
>> Zitat von Ajit Ghaisas <ajit.ghaisas at>:
>>> Hi,
>>>   Once I fix JDK-8193286, I would like to take up JDK-8242553  
>>> (IntegerSpinner does not wrap around values correctly if  
>>> amountToStepBy is larger than total numbers between Max and Min)
>>>   The current implementation is not as per what is documented.
>>>   Refer :  
>>>   I propose to fix the current buggy behavior of IntegerSpinner.
>>>   Although it is a corner case, I would like to know if anybody  
>>> relies on this buggy behavior?
>>> Regards,
>>> Ajit

More information about the openjfx-dev mailing list