Hi! > 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.
That is true. But it is the built-in form visitor that has this issue. Please dont' revert this fix before fixing the formcomponent visitor ;] ** Martin > >> [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 >
