Update code which handles stashing #1150
Conversation
PoignardAzur
force-pushed
the
fix_stashed_flags
branch
from
d21eb4f to
96e2781
Compare
| @@ -39,7 +44,7 @@ fn paint_widget( | |||
| widget_children: widget.children.reborrow_mut(), | |||
| debug_paint, | |||
| }; | |||
| if ctx.widget_state.request_paint { | |||
| if ctx.widget_state.request_paint && !is_stashed { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe there should be a debug assert to ensure that we aren't seeing something happen where request_paint is true but it was stashed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that case is fine. For example, if you change a stashed widget's background color, it's going to request repaint, and the request will be ignored.
| let transform = state.item.window_transform; | ||
| let scene = scenes.get(&id).unwrap(); | ||
| let has_clip = state.item.clip_path.is_some(); | ||
| if !is_stashed { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't know ... it just feels like if the widget its stashed, maybe it shouldn't even be getting this far and wanting to do all of this work.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In the end the only work it does is resetting needs_paint flags.
|
This will probably be rebased on top of #1179. |
PoignardAzur
force-pushed
the
fix_stashed_flags
branch
from
d166fcc to
918cd95
Compare
| state.children, | ||
| properties.children, | ||
| |widget, state, properties| { | ||
| clear_layout_flags(widget, state, properties); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it be correct to debug_assert that state.item.is_stashed is true here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It would be correct, yeah.
Avoids the panic in #1119.