On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 15:11:16 GMT, drmarmac <d...@openjdk.org> wrote: > This PR should fix the issue and cover all relevant cases with new tests. > > Note: This involves a small behavior change, as can be seen in > dblSpinner_testWrapAround_decrement_twoSteps() in SpinnerTest.java:749. With > this change the wraparound behavior is similar to that of the IntegerSpinner.
1 seems arbitrary and wrong. 2 isn't much better, since the "+1" is arbitrary for a double spinner. Neither of the above options make any sense for the sort of things you would use a wrap-around double spinner for. So that leaves 3 and 4. I was leaning towards recommending something like 4 even before you posted it, and the more I think about it, the more it seems like the best option to me. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1431#issuecomment-2028364934
