Proposed IntegerSpinner buggy behavior correction - JDK-8242553
fastegal at swingempire.de
Wed Apr 15 09:23:10 UTC 2020
yes, I read the doc, probably a bit differently - could well be my
misunderstanding and misunderstandable wording :)
- I read your suggestion (in
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8242553) 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
(https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8193286) in calculating the
remainder (which is what the first bullet amounts to) incorrectly for
min != 0
Where do I err?
Zitat von Ajit Ghaisas <ajit.ghaisas at oracle.com>:
> 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.
>> On 14-Apr-2020, at 8:01 PM, Jeanette Winzenburg
>> <fastegal at swingempire.de> 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 oracle.com>:
>>> 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?
More information about the openjfx-dev