Hi Martin, I know your concern, but is the visitor responsibility to don't go deeper in not visible components if your logic require such restriction. I attached on the ticket an test case demonstrating how it can be done. Basically you provide an implementation to the IFormVisitorParticipant interface returning false when the component is not visible.
P.S. I just realise that I was voting in an not related voting thread. > [WICKET-3166] - isVisibleInHierarchy() possibly unnecessarily checks > children whose parents are invisible? > I'm +1 to revert the change at this ticket because we start to make > unnecessary visibility checks due an recursion that always stack calls to > every component parent. I know it is important to respect any parent > visibility restriction, but if the component has an restriction by itself, > than we don't need to code such parent test. If child is not designed to be visible it may throw exception at child.isVisible. This fix was originally to prevent child.isVisible being called when parent is not visible. Reverting this fix might break applications and there is a test case attached that will demonstrate this issue. ** Martin -- Pedro Henrique Oliveira dos Santos
