On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 15:42:14 GMT, Jeanette Winzenburg <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Andy Goryachev has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a >> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes >> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 20 additional >> commits since the last revision: >> >> - Merge branch 'openjdk:master' into 8290844.skin.install >> - 8290844: unit tests >> - Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into 8290844.skin.install >> - 8290844: review comments >> - 8290844: review comments >> - Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into 8290844.skin.install >> - 8290844: review comments >> - 8290844: review comments >> - Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into 8290844.skin.install >> - 8290844: javadoc >> - ... and 10 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/compare/d49e0565...d954aafc > > modules/javafx.controls/src/main/java/javafx/scene/control/Control.java line > 226: > >> 224: * <p> >> 225: * To ensure a one-to-one relationship between a {@code Control} >> and its {@code Skin}, >> 226: * {@link Control#setSkin(Skin)} will check the return value of >> {@link Skin#getSkinnable()} > > strictly speaking, it's not the method setSkin but the property skin .. so maybe `setting the {@link #skinProperty() skin property}`? > modules/javafx.controls/src/main/java/javafx/scene/control/Control.java line > 233: > >> 231: * @return the skin property for this control >> 232: * @throws IllegalArgumentException if {@code skin != null && skin >> != getSkinnable()} >> 233: */ > > hmm .. shouldn't the condition be `(skin != null && skin.getSkinnable() != > Control.this)`? Oops. My mistake (since Andy copied what I gave him), and good catch. I think the `Control.` is not needed here, since this is the documentation of a property in Control, so maybe just: `(skin != null && skin.getSkinnable() != this)`? ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/845
