The fix looks good to me.
Thanks,
Alexandr.
On 7/8/2016 3:09 PM, Oliver Bendig wrote:
Ping....
It would be very nice if somebody could have a look at this webrev.
Thanks and kind regards, Oliver
Oliver Bendig <j...@obendig.de> hat am 29. Juni 2016 um 15:54
geschrieben:
Hi,
here is a test for this. I updated the webrev.
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2016/4908075.v2/
This test is for windows only as other OS might catch some of the tested
keyboard events before the are passed to the canvas.
I hope this is ok as the problem itself occurs on windows only.
Regards, Oliver
> Sergey Bylokhov <sergey.bylok...@oracle.com> hat am 21. Juni 2016
um 21:53
> geschrieben:
>
> Hi, Oliver.
> Is it possible to write a test for this fix?
>
> On 21.06.16 17:39, Oliver Bendig wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > can you please review the following fix:
> >
> > Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2016/4908075/
> > BugID: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-4908075
> >
> > Following some mre details: we are facing issues when trying to send
> > keyboard events via awt robot. When trying to send a keyboard
event from
> > the extended keys with the SHIFT-key pressed, this doesn't send a
> > correct key combination. Instead, the Shift-Key is released
before the
> > second keycode is sent. This makes it impossible to send combinations
> > like e.g. shift+delete.
> >
> > The bug id 4908075 for this issue is rather old. The suggested
idea to
> > switch to SendInput() instead of keybd_event() was delayed at
that time
> > because of missing support in Win98. For testing purposes, I
implemented
> > SendInput instead of keybd_event, but the issue stays the same. The
> > problem seems to be caused by the missing KEYEVENTF_EXTENDEDKEY flag
> > when calling keybd_event or SendInput. Bug id 8155742 introduces this
> > flag for other reason for VK_ALT_GRAPH. If this is enhanced to
cover the
> > extended keys that were introduced as enhancement of the old 84
key AT
> > keyboard, the correct key events are sent.
> >
> > The bug 4908075 was closed as "Won't fix" but I think the fix
would be
> > rather simple. Should I reopen 4908075 or is it better to create
a new
> > bug for this issue.
> >
> > Thank you and best regards,
> > Oliver
> >
>
> --
> Best regards, Sergey.
>
>
