On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 23:52:07 GMT, Nir Lisker <nlis...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> The private field `lastPlayFinished` is responsible for 2 cases where an > animation in `STOPPED` status does not play after `play()` is called if the > rate is negative: > > 1. When the animation is created, it is `STOPPED` and `lastPlayFinished` is > `false`. Setting a negative rate and calling `play()` will not jump to the > end of the animation (in order to play it backwards) because the `if > (lastPlayedFinished)` check is `false`. Creating the animation with > `lastPlayFinished = true` fixes this. However, > `SequentialTransitionPlayTest#testCycleReverse`'s initial state test implies > that the original behavior is correct. *That test currently fails with this > change.* Either the fix is reverted or the test is corrected. > 2. When the animation is stopped (if it was not `STOPPED` already), > `jumpTo(Duration.ZERO)` sets `lastPlayFinished` to `false`, which causes the > same issue above with `play()`. Setting `lastPlayFinished = true` at the end > `stop()` fixes this issue. > > A test was added for case 2 to check that the playing head indeed jumps to > the end of the animation. Without this fix, it stays at the start. > > I'm still somewhat confused as to what constitutes a "last play finished". > Any `jumpTo` resets `lastPlayFinished` to `false`, even if the jump is to the > start/end of the animation. In this case, stopping an animation, jumping to > its start/end, setting the rate to negative/positive, and playing, will do > nothing as the end condition is reached immediately. This is what the > behavior that was fixed for cases 1 and 2, but maybe this is also incorrect > behavior for jumping to start/end. > > A test app is included in the "parent" > [bug](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8210238), which also mentions > a bug relating to **pausing** and playing backwards, so be mindful of it when > testing. I'll review this next week. This seems a fine candidate for openjfx14, so it (along with a couple other pending reviews that can be for 14) will be a good test of targeting a PR to the stabilization branch. I also request @arapte to review. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/82
