Hello Pavel, all,
I've reverted some of the changes, please find new webrev here:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vkarnauk/7123767/webrev.05/
Though the diff is smaller indeed, it makes me somewhat curious why we
tend to keep old poorly written and formatted code...
Regards,
- Vlad
On 9/12/2012 3:16 PM, Pavel Porvatov wrote:
Hi Vladislav,
Hello Pavel, all,
please find new webrev here:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vkarnauk/7123767/webrev.04/
Now the test passes. The last comment from me is:
could you please don't rename existing variables in the
ToolTipManager.java (sorry, I noticed this only now...)? If you rename
back drawingGC into gc and workingBounds into sBounds the diff will be
much smaller. When you do that be sure that there is no lines that are
just reformatted.
Regards, Pavel
Please see my comments inline.
Regards,
- Vlad
On 9/4/2012 8:35 PM, Pavel Porvatov wrote:
Hi Vladislav,
I have several comments for the fix:
1.
if(preferredLocation != null) {
location = toFind;
if (!leftToRight) {
location.x -= size.width;
}
} else {
location.x = screenLocation.x + mouseEvent.getX();
location.y = screenLocation.y + mouseEvent.getY() + 20;
In case "preferredLocation != null" creation of new object
Point location = new Point();
is not used, so you could put location = new Point() in else block
Agreed, fixed.
2. adjustInsets changes values of arguments. So return the same
value and assigning
workingBounds = adjustInsets(workingBounds, insets);
looks unnecessary
Agreed. I've removed adjustInsets() completely.
3. I run the test via jtreg and it failed on my environment with the
attached log. Could you please investigate that?
My initial approach for the test was incorrect, I've run on several
issues on Mac platform. I've re-written the test completely and run
it against jdk7 and jdk8 on Windows and Mac OS X.
Regards, Pavel
Hello Pavel, all,
thank you for the review, please find new webrev here:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vkarnauk/7123767/webrev.03/
Please see my comments inline.
Regards,
- Vlad
On 8/31/2012 8:50 PM, Pavel Porvatov wrote:
Hi Vladislav,
I have several comments about the fix:
1. getDrawingRect: now localInsets should be requested only if
localRect.contains(toFind) is true
2.
+ // Something's really wrong here - use the screen
that our
+ // Component belongs to
+ if (workingBounds == null)
+ workingBounds =
insideComponent.getGraphicsConfiguration().getBounds();
a. You should always use {...} for if construction
Fixed.
b. It seems we should invoke adjustInsets there. To reduce the
code I think you can rename getDrawingRect into
getGraphicsConfiguration and return GraphicsConfiguration there.
And only when GraphicsConfiguration is found calculate adjusted
bounds...
Agreed. Fixed.
3. getDrawingRect comment should have two ")" at the end
Fixed.
Abou the test:
1. You should use Toolkit.realSync after setVisible
Fixed.
2. I run the test on jdk1.8.0b51 and it passes. Looks strange...
The reason why it didn't fail on non-patched JDK8 is because line 184
183 Component component = e.getChild();
184 if (component.isShowing()) {
185 if
(!config.equals(getGCByPoint(component.getLocationOnScreen()))) {
returned "false" as AWT event queue was processed slower than test
thread, thus my check never actually happened. I've changed these
logic (please see new webrev), now this condition is processed
correctly. Test works on patched JDK and fails on non-patched JDK6,
7, and 8.
Regards, Pavel
Hi Pavel, all,
please find new webrev here:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vkarnauk/7123767/webrev.02/
Please see my comments inline.
Regards,
- Vlad
On 8/17/2012 9:10 PM, Pavel Porvatov wrote:
Hi Vladislav,
I have several comments about the fix:
1. javax.swing.ToolTipManager#showTipWindow: I think toFind
variable should be initialized in if(preferredLocation != null)
{ ....} else {...} block. It looks more logical and code will be
more compact (adjustedPreferredLocation can be removed at all, I
think)
Agreed. I've re-worked this piece.
2. Could you please explain why you are using union of all
rectangles in the getDrawingRect method? In case two monitors
are aligned on a diagonal totalRect will contain areas that are
not covered by screen devices and popups can be placed incorrectly.
Agreed again. I've re-designed getDrawingRect() function and
placed additional condition into showTipWindow() function; now
every situation should be handled correctly.
Automated test was added, please see the webrev.
Regards,
- Vlad
Regards, Pavel
Hello,
please review the fix for 7123767: Wrong tooltip location in
Multi-Monitor configurations
jdk7 webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vkarnauk/7123767/webrev.00/
test source: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vkarnauk/7123767/test/
bug description:
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7123767
This is also a customer escalated issue in jdk6.
On multi-monitor configurations Component.getLocationOnScreen()
may return negative values. Additionally,
ToolTipManager.showTipWindow() method calculates tip window
location from Component' getLocationOnScreen() return data and
draws tip window using the same GraphicsConfiguration instance
as component's top-left corner, which again can be of negative
value. When component is stretched across multiple screen
devices, this may lead to a situation when it's tooltip is
drawn on wrong monitor.
To fix this we should count all GraphicsConfiguration instances
and determine correct screen device to draw on. We should also
take into account that:
1) tip window preferred location could be set
2) preferred location could be greater than total virtual
bounds of all monitors. To make tip window visible in such case
we move it to the corresponding corner of total virtual bounds
3) exact order of monitors (left-to-right and top-to-bottom) is
unknown
I run jtreg against ToolTipManager tests and all tests passed
(I run it several times with different monitor configurations).
I also tested the fix with custom test program (please see the
link provided) with 4 possible monitor configurations
(left-to-right, right-to-left, top-to-bottom and bottom-to-top)
and saw no issues.
I added no new automated test(s) because this at least would
require multiple monitors to run.
Regards,
- Vlad
