On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 03:45:32 GMT, Sai Pradeep Dandem <[email protected]> wrote:
>> **Issue:**
>> Using pseudo classes in programmatic query using Node.lookupAll() or
>> Node.lookup() gives unexpected results.
>>
>> **Cause:**
>> There is no check for checking the psuedo states matching in the applies()
>> method of SimpleSelector.java. So checking for "applies()" alone is not
>> sufficient in lookup() method.
>>
>> **Fix:**
>> Included an extra check for the psuedo states to match.
>
> Sai Pradeep Dandem has updated the pull request incrementally with one
> additional commit since the last revision:
>
> 8185831: Fixed test failing issues and code review comments
Another question: this PR changes the behavior of Node.lookup() and
Node.lookupAll() in respect to pseudo classes.
Now, wouldn't that pose a regression risk for applications?
Should we create a new method with the new semantics instead (+ boolean
considerPseudoClasses or some such)?
modules/javafx.graphics/src/main/java/javafx/scene/Node.java line 1993:
> 1991: */
> 1992: List<Node> lookupAll(Selector selector, List<Node> results) {
> 1993: if (selectorMatches(selector)) {
line 1990 might be incorrect: the return value **can** be null.
We probably should just correct the javadoc, and since it's a private API no
CSR is needed. All callers of this method do check for null.
modules/javafx.graphics/src/test/java/test/javafx/scene/Node_lookup_Test.java
line 108:
> 106:
> 107: @Test
> 108: public void lookupPsuedoTest(){
spelling: lookupPseudoTest
(also in the bug and PR title)
-------------
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1245#issuecomment-1769133936
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1245#discussion_r1364317319
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1245#discussion_r1364312507
