On Thu, 17 Sep 2026 12:24:22 GMT, Florian Kirmaier <[email protected]> 
wrote:

>> ### Fix
>> The PR replaces applyCss() with reapplyCSS in the nodeOrientation code of 
>> Scene.
>> applyCss() reapplied styles eagerly - and didn't rebuild the "style maps" 
>> resulting in wrong css.
>> reapplyCSS() rematches correctly - and also defers it to the next pulse.
>> 
>> I've added a unit test to: Node_effectiveOrientation_Css_Test.
>> 
>> ### Test improvements
>> Because the whole test class was disabled, I've also investigated which 
>> tests are working - and reenabled the working tests.
>> This PR also fixes 2 of the previously failing tests in 
>> Node_effectiveOrientation_Css_Test - which are now enabled.
>> 
>> Which are the following tests:
>> 
>> Node_effectiveOrientation_Css_Test.test_dir_pseudoClass_functions_on_scene_effective_orientation_not_node
>> Node_effectiveOrientation_Css_Test.test_SimpleSelector_dir_pseudoClass_with_scene_effective_orientation_rtl
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ---------
>> - [x] I confirm that I make this contribution in accordance with the 
>> [OpenJDK Interim AI Policy](https://openjdk.org/legal/ai).
>
> Florian Kirmaier has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a 
> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes 
> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains three additional 
> commits since the last revision:
> 
>  - Merge remote-tracking branch 'refs/remotes/origin/master' into 
> JDK-8388304-fix-scene-nodeorientation
>  - 8388304: fixed spelling and test-name
>  - 8388304: Scene.setNodeOrientation does not update :dir() styles
>    
>    Replace applyCss() with reapplyCSS() in the nodeOrientation invalidation:
>    applyCss() reapplied styles eagerly without rebuilding style maps, leaving
>    :dir() matches stale. reapplyCSS() re-matches and defers to the next pulse.

Great - I've added the 2 changes.
@BeforeAll is now properly used in the test. And the newline is removed.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/2213#issuecomment-5777679808

Reply via email to