Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.

Bug 363682

Summary: TreeViewer does not clear its items if the viewer is not visible
Product: [RT] RAP Reporter: Yury <swimmer_86>
Component: JFaceAssignee: Project Inbox <rap-inbox>
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE QA Contact:
Severity: normal    
Priority: P3    
Version: 1.4   
Target Milestone: ---   
Hardware: PC   
OS: Windows 7   
Whiteboard:
Attachments:
Description Flags
patch for demo project
none
broken view after update none

Description Yury CLA 2011-11-14 04:28:33 EST 
Build Identifier: RAP 1.4

TreeViewer does not clear its items by setInput(null) if the ViewPart with this viewer is not visible (hidden by another ViewPart).

Steps to reproduce:

1. Apply the attached patch to DemoTreeViewPart from org.eclipse.rap.demo.
2. Run application in \rap EntryPoint.
3. Activate "View I" view.
4. Press "Refresh" action on toolbar and immediately switch to "View II".
5. Wait 2 seconds and sitch to the "View I".

Tree is broken (see the attached picture 'Broken view.jpg').

Reproducible: Always
Comment 1 Yury CLA 2011-11-14 04:30:14 EST 
Created attachment 206929 [details]
patch for demo project
Comment 2 Yury CLA 2011-11-14 04:30:50 EST 
Created attachment 206930 [details]
broken view after update
Comment 3 Yury CLA 2011-11-14 04:38:54 EST 
bug is reproduced in IE9, FF works fine
Comment 4 Ivan Furnadjiev CLA 2011-11-14 04:44:41 EST 
Yury, I think that this bug is a duplicate of bug 362514 which has been fixed in 1.5M3. Please reopen the bug if the issue persists with M3.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 362514 ***
Comment 5 Yury CLA 2011-11-14 04:50:19 EST 
Thank you, Ivan.

362514 is that I was looking for.

Regards,
Yury.
Comment 6 Ivan Furnadjiev CLA 2011-11-14 05:40:19 EST 
Yury, did you reopen this bug by mistake?
Comment 7 Yury CLA 2011-11-14 06:20:13 EST 
Yes, it was a mistake (probably it was reopened with the last comment). Sorry.
Comment 8 Ivan Furnadjiev CLA 2011-11-14 06:27:52 EST 
(In reply to comment #7)
> Yes, it was a mistake (probably it was reopened with the last comment). Sorry.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 362514 ***