On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 17:56:15 GMT, Michael Strauß <mstra...@openjdk.org> wrote:

>>> > The `focusWithin` count cannot be negative, and there is no possible way 
>>> > for applications to misuse the API to cause a negative count. If it ends 
>>> > up being negative, that's because of a bug, and I think that bugs should 
>>> > be fixed and not logged.
>>> 
>>> Yes, the reason I was asking this is that we actually have this problem 
>>> right now, that it could be negative, although it should not. If we would 
>>> have logged that, we probably found that bug much earlier. In any case, I 
>>> think with the new logic and the `count > 0`, it is fine as is.
>> 
>> @Maran23  Just to clarify...
>> If I have a case (with jfx21) where the count goes negative, is this still a 
>> bug that I should file?  Or are you saying that it's understood as expected 
>> behavior now?
>
>> > > The `focusWithin` count cannot be negative, and there is no possible way 
>> > > for applications to misuse the API to cause a negative count. If it ends 
>> > > up being negative, that's because of a bug, and I think that bugs should 
>> > > be fixed and not logged.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Yes, the reason I was asking this is that we actually have this problem 
>> > right now, that it could be negative, although it should not. If we would 
>> > have logged that, we probably found that bug much earlier. In any case, I 
>> > think with the new logic and the `count > 0`, it is fine as is.
>> 
>> @Maran23 Just to clarify... If I have a case (with jfx21) where the count 
>> goes negative, is this still a bug that I should file? Or are you saying 
>> that it's understood as expected behavior now?
> 
> If you have a situation where the focusWithin count is negative, please file 
> it as a bug. That's not expected behavior.

@mstr2  Ok, I will try to get a bug filed eventually.  It will take time 
because I've only observed this in a complex application, and it may be 
difficult to produce a minimal example.

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1210#issuecomment-1758199949

Reply via email to