On Fri, 17 Apr 2026 21:23:08 GMT, Marius Hanl <[email protected]> wrote:
> This fixes an IOOBE and even improves the performance / change aggregation.
> I suggest reading Jeanette's comment in the ticket, that helped a lot to
> understand it.
>
> There was a code path that broke change events.
> Jeanette wondered as well in the comment why this exists at all, if this was
> meant to be some kind of optimization?
>
> What I found out is: Because of this code path, we actually got 3 change
> events and the order was wrong.
> What we got with the test from Jeanette: `subChanges: { [B] removed at 1, [D]
> removed at 2, [C, E, F] removed at 1 }`
>
> Removing the code path and just calling `insertRemoved(..)` directly will
> correctly find an alreadx existing sub change with `findSubChange` and
> aggregate the changes together. So now, we only get one event: `subChanges: {
> [B, C, D, E, F] removed at 1 }`. No error and we use the smart aggregation
> from `insertRemoved`.
>
> My speculation why this code existed is that there may was a former bug,
> similar like [JDK-8208758](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8208758)
> (#2117) where I also did a fix in the `insertRemoved(..)` method.
>
> ---------
> - [x] I confirm that I make this contribution in accordance with the [OpenJDK
> Interim AI Policy](https://openjdk.org/legal/ai).
This pull request has now been integrated.
Changeset: 697a534b
Author: Marius Hanl <[email protected]>
URL:
https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/commit/697a534bf494d82bf8e0ecacfebaba003dcc6c7a
Stats: 60 lines in 3 files changed: 55 ins; 4 del; 1 mod
8237868: java.lang.IndexOutOfBoundsException in FilteredList
Reviewed-by: angorya, mstrauss
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/2154
