Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

8185831: Pseudo selectors do not appear to work in Node.lookupAll() #1245

Conversation

SaiPradeepDandem
Copy link
Contributor

@SaiPradeepDandem SaiPradeepDandem commented Sep 19, 2023

Issue:
Using pseudo classes in programmatic query using Node.lookupAll() or Node.lookup() gives unexpected results.

Cause:
There is no check for checking the psuedo states matching in the applies() method of SimpleSelector.java. So checking for "applies()" alone is not sufficient in lookup() method.

Fix:
Included an extra check for the psuedo states to match.


Progress

  • Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
  • Commit message must refer to an issue
  • Change must be properly reviewed (3 reviews required, with at least 1 Reviewer, 2 Authors)

Issue

  • JDK-8185831: Pseudo selectors do not appear to work in Node.lookupAll() (Bug - P4)

Reviewers

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jfx.git pull/1245/head:pull/1245
$ git checkout pull/1245

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/1245
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jfx.git pull/1245/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 1245

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 1245

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1245.diff

Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

@bridgekeeper
Copy link

bridgekeeper bot commented Sep 19, 2023

👋 Welcome back SaiPradeepDandem! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the rfr Ready for review label Sep 19, 2023
@mlbridge
Copy link

mlbridge bot commented Sep 19, 2023

Copy link
Member

@kevinrushforth kevinrushforth left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This causes many test failures, which suggests that this is not the right fix. And no, the solution is not to change the existing tests.

@kevinrushforth
Copy link
Member

/reviewers 3

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Sep 19, 2023

@kevinrushforth
The total number of required reviews for this PR (including the jcheck configuration and the last /reviewers command) is now set to 3 (with at least 1 Reviewer, 2 Authors).

@bridgekeeper
Copy link

bridgekeeper bot commented Oct 17, 2023

@SaiPradeepDandem This pull request has been inactive for more than 4 weeks and will be automatically closed if another 4 weeks passes without any activity. To avoid this, simply add a new comment to the pull request. Feel free to ask for assistance if you need help with progressing this pull request towards integration!

@hjohn
Copy link
Collaborator

hjohn commented Oct 18, 2023

This looks more reasonable now.

@andy-goryachev-oracle
Copy link
Contributor

@kevinrushforth mentioned that

This causes many test failures, which suggests that this is not the right fix. And no, the solution is not to change the existing tests.

github actions pass all tests, and headful gradle tests all pass, at least on macOS. Are we ok then?

@andy-goryachev-oracle
Copy link
Contributor

Another question: this PR changes the behavior of Node.lookup() and Node.lookupAll() in respect to pseudo classes.
Now, wouldn't that pose a regression risk for applications?
Should we create a new method with the new semantics instead (+ boolean considerPseudoClasses or some such)?


nodes = root.lookupAll(".d");
assertEquals(2, nodes.size());
assertTrue(nodes.contains(d));
assertTrue(nodes.contains(d2));
}

@Test
public void lookupPsuedoTest(){
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

spelling: lookupPseudoTest
(also in the bug and PR title)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixed the spelling issue in the class. However, as I have no permissions to edit the bug title, I cannot change the PR title unless the bug title is corrected by some one.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@andy-goryachev-oracle Thanks for correcting the bug title. Corrected the PR title now.

Copy link
Contributor

@andy-goryachev-oracle andy-goryachev-oracle left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

On second though, I think this change will not cause regression: when no pseudo class is specified in the lookup selector, the lookup ignores the pseudo classes as before.

What I strongly recommend is to clarify the behavior of lookup() and lookupAll() in their javadoc (which might require a CSR) with respect to pseudo classes.

@@ -96,4 +109,41 @@ public class Node_lookup_Test {
assertTrue(nodes.contains(d));
assertTrue(nodes.contains(d2));
}

@Test
public void lookupPseudoTest(){
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

please insert space

public void lookupPseudoTest() {

nodes = root.lookupAll(":testPseudo1");
assertEquals(2, nodes.size());
assertTrue(nodes.contains(g));
assertTrue(nodes.contains(hg));
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd add one more test case to verify lack of regression when no pseudo class is specified. May be something like this (feel free to expand, add negative cases etc.):

    /**
     * Verifies that the lookup ignores pseudo classes when selector contains no explicit pseudo class.
     */
    @Test
    public void lookupPseudoTest2() {
        Group root = new Group();
        
        Group ab = new Group();
        ab.getStyleClass().addAll("a", "b");
        
        Group a = new Group();
        a.getStyleClass().addAll("a");
        
        Group a1 = new Group();
        a1.getStyleClass().addAll("a");
        a1.pseudoClassStateChanged(PseudoClass.getPseudoClass("P1"), true);
        
        ParentShim.getChildren(root).addAll(a, a1, ab);
        
        Set<Node> rv;
        
        rv = root.lookupAll(".a");
        assertTrue(rv.contains(a));
        assertTrue(rv.contains(a1));
        
        rv = root.lookupAll(".a:P1");
        assertTrue(rv.contains(a1));
    }

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Added another test case to cover the scenario you mentioned. I used the same nodes (have pseudo classes set) which are used in previous test case. Tried to cover all possible scenarios to check for regression.

@SaiPradeepDandem SaiPradeepDandem changed the title 8185831: Psuedo selectors do not appear to work in Node.lookupAll() 8185831: Pseudo selectors do not appear to work in Node.lookupAll() Oct 19, 2023
* Verifies that the lookup ignores pseudo classes when selector contains no explicit pseudo class.
*/
@Test
public void lookupPseudoTest2() {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

the reason I've used different nodes is because the situation you have with existing nodes might give false positive.

I wanted to make sure that selector "a." will collect nodes with ".a" and ".a:pseudo", but in the standard set of nodes with g and hg nodes - but they have the same :testPseudo1, so it's not exactly equivalent.

The other option is to add new nodes, one with ".x" and another with ".x:pseudo"
If you do that, it might be easier to change the javadoc format to do something like this:

 └─ Pane
     ├─ VFlow (Pane) .flow
     │   ├─ ClippedPane (Pane) .content

(but it's just a very minor suggestion)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the clarification. Now I got the point what you are saying about.
Added a new test case to cover this scenario. Used x, y.. naming to make a clear separation from previous scenarios.

However do you still prefer to keep the lookupPseudoTest2() scenarios? This is almost similar to quickTest() and lookupAllTest() except that all the nodes used in this method have pseudo classes set.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

we could keep it - the more the merrier.

ideally, we could use a more thorough approach: let's say, use two or three layers, and create as many nodes as there are combinations, to test every combination of the selector and search result.

but the main result we got is that there should be no regression w.r.t. the old implementation (I think).
two more people should definitely take a look at this PR still.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok. Thank you :)


nodes = root.lookupAll(".x:random");
assertEquals(0, nodes.size());

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

excellent! thank you.
could you please remove the extra newline before } here ?

*/
private boolean selectorMatches(Selector s) {
boolean matches = s != null && s.applies(this);
if(matches && !s.createMatch().getPseudoClasses().isEmpty()){
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please add a space after if and before {.

ParentShim.getChildren(root).addAll(a, bc);
f = new Group();
f.getStyleClass().add("f");
f.pseudoClassStateChanged(PseudoClass.getPseudoClass("testPseudo"),true);
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you add a space after the comma in this line and other lines after that?

* Verifies that the lookup ignores pseudo classes when selector contains no explicit pseudo class.
*/
@Test
public void lookupPseudoTest3() {
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Consider naming the test methods according to what they test.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Renamed the methods by referring to method names used in other classes. I noticed that descriptive long method names is accepted, so named similarly. The only thing I want to check is: I renamed existing methods also. Is it accepted? or I am not allowed to rename others method names?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I see no problem renaming: there are no dependencies.

Copy link
Collaborator

@hjohn hjohn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good, although I do think this needs to be documented on the public methods (it should not be a separate PR).

@andy-goryachev-oracle
Copy link
Contributor

I agree with @hjohn : it would be nice to clarify the behavior of Node.lookup() and Node.lookupAll() in regards to pseudo classes.

I think it will not require a CSR since it may qualify as a clarification.

* If multiple nodes have same style class "myStyle" and few nodes have
* a pseudo state "myPseudo", then to find all nodes with "myPseudo" state, the lookupAll method can be used as follows:
* <code>scene.lookupAll(".myStyle:myPseudo");</code> or <code>scene.lookupAll(":myPseudo");</code>
* </p>
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Added explanation is very good! I would add one more thing - that if no pseudo class is specified by the lookup selector, the result will contain nodes with pseudo classes (that is, pseudo classes are ignored).

Minor note: should we be using {@code ... } instead of < code > ?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The second example is good. I echo my above comments about adding "For example, ".

* @param results The results. This will never be null.
* @param selector The Selector.
* @param results The results.
* @return List of matching nodes. The returned value can be null.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

minor: I don't think we should capitalize text in @ param and @ return

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Agreed. Please change "The" and "List" to lower case.

Copy link
Member

@kevinrushforth kevinrushforth left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I left a couple comments on the API docs.

* be used to find this node as follows: {@code scene.lookup("#myId");}.
* </p>
* <p>
* If two nodes, lets say NodeA and NodeB have same style class "myStyle" and NodeA has
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Since this is a separate paragraph, please add "For example, " here to make it clear that this is an example (and not normative specification). Maybe something like this:

     * For example, if two nodes, NodeA and NodeB, have the same ...

* If multiple nodes have same style class "myStyle" and few nodes have
* a pseudo state "myPseudo", then to find all nodes with "myPseudo" state, the lookupAll method can be used as follows:
* <code>scene.lookupAll(".myStyle:myPseudo");</code> or <code>scene.lookupAll(":myPseudo");</code>
* </p>
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The second example is good. I echo my above comments about adding "For example, ".

* @param results The results. This will never be null.
* @param selector The Selector.
* @param results The results.
* @return List of matching nodes. The returned value can be null.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Agreed. Please change "The" and "List" to lower case.

* <p>
* If two nodes, lets say NodeA and NodeB have same style class "myStyle" and NodeA has
* a pseudo state "myPseudo", then to find NodeA, the lookup method can be used as follows:
* {@code scene.lookup(".myStyle:myPseudo");} or {@code scene.lookup(":myPseudo");}. If no pseudo class is specified
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The sentence about what happens when no pseudo class is specified is true in general and not really part of this example. I recommend moving it before the two examples. And I think it could be worded more clearly.

    * If the lookup selector does not specify a pseudo class, the lookup will ignore pseudo class
    *  states; it will return the first matching node even if it contains pseudo classes.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Or possibly even more clear:

    * If the lookup selector does not specify a pseudo class, the lookup will ignore pseudo class
    * states; it will return the first matching node whether or not it contains pseudo classes.

Comment on lines 1987 to 1988
* {@code scene.lookupAll(".myStyle:myPseudo");} or {@code scene.lookupAll(":myPseudo");}. If no pseudo class is specified
* by the lookupAll selector, irrespective of the nodes pseudo states the result will contain all nodes matching the selector.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please make the same change regarding the last sentence that you did in the lookup method (move it before the examples and reword to match lookup).

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry overlooked that... done now.

Copy link
Member

@kevinrushforth kevinrushforth left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The updated docs look good. I also verified that the provided test fails without the fix and passes with the fix.

NOTE: There is a Skara bug that causes the state of /reviewers command to be ignored. Do not integrate this until there are three (3) approving reviews.

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Nov 1, 2023

⚠️ @SaiPradeepDandem the full name on your profile does not match the author name in this pull requests' HEAD commit. If this pull request gets integrated then the author name from this pull requests' HEAD commit will be used for the resulting commit. If you wish to push a new commit with a different author name, then please run the following commands in a local repository of your personal fork:

$ git checkout 8185831_psuedo_selectors_not_working_in_lookupAll
$ git commit --author='Preferred Full Name <you@example.com>' --allow-empty -m 'Update full name'
$ git push

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Nov 1, 2023

@SaiPradeepDandem This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

8185831: Pseudo selectors do not appear to work in Node.lookupAll()

Reviewed-by: kcr, angorya, jhendrikx

You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed.

At the time when this comment was updated there had been 29 new commits pushed to the master branch:

  • f41e3ec: 8316419: [macos] Setting X/Y makes Stage maximization not work before show
  • 72c052e: 8319231: Unrecognized "minimum" key in .jcheck/conf causes /reviewers command to be ignored
  • 6104113: 8317836: FX nodes embedded in JFXPanel need to track component orientation
  • a11faa9: 8319066: Application window not always activated in macOS 14 Sonoma
  • f0246b8: 8311216: DataURI can lose information in some charset environments
  • 9b93c96: 8205067: Resizing window with TextField hides text value
  • 1672960: 8318630: TextAreaBehaviorRobotTest.testNonMacBindings fails on Linux
  • 2aa69e0: 8318708: FX: Update copyright year in docs, readme files to 2024
  • bce15aa: 8318714: Update copyright header for files modified in 2023
  • 929035f: 8306083: Text.hitTest is incorrect when more than one Text node in TextFlow
  • ... and 19 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/compare/fa73e0d247dcadc8f80586c52ba7f92f3bb7eadb...master

As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

As you do not have Committer status in this project an existing Committer must agree to sponsor your change. Possible candidates are the reviewers of this PR (@kevinrushforth, @andy-goryachev-oracle, @hjohn) but any other Committer may sponsor as well.

➡️ To flag this PR as ready for integration with the above commit message, type /integrate in a new comment. (Afterwards, your sponsor types /sponsor in a new comment to perform the integration).

@openjdk openjdk bot added the ready Ready to be integrated label Nov 1, 2023
Copy link
Collaborator

@hjohn hjohn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good, no comments

Copy link
Contributor

@andy-goryachev-oracle andy-goryachev-oracle left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

🕶 looks good

@kevinrushforth
Copy link
Member

@SaiPradeepDandem This is now OK to integrate.

@SaiPradeepDandem
Copy link
Contributor Author

@SaiPradeepDandem This is now OK to integrate.

@kevinrushforth thanks for confirming. But I am pretty not sure what steps I need to do next. Is it that I need to type a new comment with /integrate ? as mentioned in

To flag this PR as ready for integration with the above commit message, type /integrate in a new comment. (Afterwards, your sponsor types /sponsor in a new comment to perform the integration).

@andy-goryachev-oracle
Copy link
Contributor

yes, just type slash-integrate command

@SaiPradeepDandem
Copy link
Contributor Author

/integrate

@openjdk openjdk bot added the sponsor Ready to sponsor label Nov 1, 2023
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Nov 1, 2023

@SaiPradeepDandem
Your change (at version bd9f6bf) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

@andy-goryachev-oracle
Copy link
Contributor

/sponsor

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Nov 1, 2023

Going to push as commit bb06b64.
Since your change was applied there have been 29 commits pushed to the master branch:

  • f41e3ec: 8316419: [macos] Setting X/Y makes Stage maximization not work before show
  • 72c052e: 8319231: Unrecognized "minimum" key in .jcheck/conf causes /reviewers command to be ignored
  • 6104113: 8317836: FX nodes embedded in JFXPanel need to track component orientation
  • a11faa9: 8319066: Application window not always activated in macOS 14 Sonoma
  • f0246b8: 8311216: DataURI can lose information in some charset environments
  • 9b93c96: 8205067: Resizing window with TextField hides text value
  • 1672960: 8318630: TextAreaBehaviorRobotTest.testNonMacBindings fails on Linux
  • 2aa69e0: 8318708: FX: Update copyright year in docs, readme files to 2024
  • bce15aa: 8318714: Update copyright header for files modified in 2023
  • 929035f: 8306083: Text.hitTest is incorrect when more than one Text node in TextFlow
  • ... and 19 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/compare/fa73e0d247dcadc8f80586c52ba7f92f3bb7eadb...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the integrated Pull request has been integrated label Nov 1, 2023
@openjdk openjdk bot closed this Nov 1, 2023
@openjdk openjdk bot removed ready Ready to be integrated rfr Ready for review sponsor Ready to sponsor labels Nov 1, 2023
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Nov 1, 2023

@andy-goryachev-oracle @SaiPradeepDandem Pushed as commit bb06b64.

💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
integrated Pull request has been integrated
5 participants