On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 16:47:28 GMT, John Hendrikx <[email protected]> wrote:
>> This new check is much more accurate to detect whether a parent is currently >> laying out its children. The previous code almost never worked, resulting in >> additional unnecessary layouts. > > John Hendrikx has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a > merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains five commits: > > - Merge branch 'master' into feature/in-layoutchildren-detection-for-node > - Rename test > - Add regression test > - Fix ToolBarSkinTest > > Reusing a toolbar as part of several scenes, in combination with the > StubToolkit that doesn't handle pulses makes this test fail with the relayout > detection fix. > - Change how Node detects whether a relayout is required > > This new check is much more accurate to detect whether a parent is > currently laying out its children. The previous code almost never worked, > resulting in additional unnecessary layouts. > So this regression has not been addressed: > > <img alt="Image" width="521" height="126" > src="https://private-user-images.githubusercontent.com/107069028/564423104-8bc7c2b7-5b50-4e43-a14f-405644e54ea0.png?jwt=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJpc3MiOiJnaXRodWIuY29tIiwiYXVkIjoicmF3LmdpdGh1YnVzZXJjb250ZW50LmNvbSIsImtleSI6ImtleTUiLCJleHAiOjE3NzM4MDI1NDIsIm5iZiI6MTc3MzgwMjI0MiwicGF0aCI6Ii8xMDcwNjkwMjgvNTY0NDIzMTA0LThiYzdjMmI3LTViNTAtNGU0My1hMTRmLTQwNTY0NGU1NGVhMC5wbmc_WC1BbXotQWxnb3JpdGhtPUFXUzQtSE1BQy1TSEEyNTYmWC1BbXotQ3JlZGVudGlhbD1BS0lBVkNPRFlMU0E1M1BRSzRaQSUyRjIwMjYwMzE4JTJGdXMtZWFzdC0xJTJGczMlMkZhd3M0X3JlcXVlc3QmWC1BbXotRGF0ZT0yMDI2MDMxOFQwMjUwNDJaJlgtQW16LUV4cGlyZXM9MzAwJlgtQW16LVNpZ25hdHVyZT05MGJmYmVkOWEwMTBkYTYzNmYzOTc4ZjRhZDA3OWEzODM3NzQ5MzZlMTY3ODhlMWVlZGIzNWE5YzY5OTA3NDNhJlgtQW16LVNpZ25lZEhlYWRlcnM9aG9zdCJ9.8mwHkSUHhy8ThtE1Ny9ouxMvGbcRU3b3nyvH0LxChQg"> > this happens when the MT opens on an external monitor at scale=1 (??). move > the window to retina scale=2, and it looks normal. move the window back to > external - ellipses appear again. Just checking, was this change included? https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/2007 ? If it was included, then this is apparently another problem being exposed by this change. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1945#issuecomment-4079281303
