On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 13:10:36 GMT, Kevin Rushforth <k...@openjdk.org> wrote:

>> This is a very localized fix for the issue described in 
>> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8364049 which resulted from comparing 
>> snapped and non-snapped values.  The issue seems to happen only with 
>> fractional scale, that is, on Windows at 125%, 150%, 175% etc. scales.
>> 
>> ---
>> 
>> While looking at the `ToolBarSkin` code, I noticed a general pattern related 
>> to snapping, that might cause similar issues in the tool bar skin and 
>> elsewhere.  Here is an example in `ToolBarSkin::computePrefWidth()` in L411:
>> 
>> 
>>         if (toolbar.getOrientation() == Orientation.HORIZONTAL) {
>>             for (Node node : toolbar.getItems()) {
>>                 if (!node.isManaged()) continue;
>>                 prefWidth += snapSizeX(node.prefWidth(-1)) + getSpacing();
>>             }
>>             prefWidth -= getSpacing();
>>         } else {
>> 
>> 
>> the general issue, in my opinion, is that doing `prefWidth += 
>> snapSizeX(node.prefWidth(-1)) + getSpacing();` results in the `prefWidth` 
>> value differ from its snapped value.  In other words, whenever computation 
>> involves snapped values, the result must be snapped as well - and that 
>> includes the case when all the parts of the computation are snapped.
>> 
>> Another, related, topic is how to properly snap the values in the 
>> computation.  I would say ideally it should be done like this:
>> 
>> 
>> snappedResult = snap(snap(value1) .OP. snap(value2) .OP. ... snap (valueN))
>> 
>> 
>> It might be possible to skip the snapping of intermediary values, and only 
>> snap the result, but one must be careful not to accumulate errors.
>> 
>> Getting back to the ToolBarSkin, one can see the issue on LL392, 399, 411, 
>> 417, 425, 436, 530, and so on.
>> 
>> I decided not to fix the snapping for the purpose of making this PR narrow 
>> in scope with the goal to backport it to jfx25, but I did want to describe 
>> the issue.
>
> @arapte Can you review this?

@kevinrushforth please take a look

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1856#issuecomment-3140819996

Reply via email to