| Summary: | got error when setting children for Box | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | z_Archived | Reporter: | Xin Wu <cdlwuxin> | ||||||
| Component: | EDT | Assignee: | Huang Ji Yong <hjiyong> | ||||||
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | |||||||
| Severity: | normal | ||||||||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | hjiyong, jqian, svihovec | ||||||
| Version: | unspecified | ||||||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||||
| Hardware: | PC | ||||||||
| OS: | Windows XP | ||||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||
|
Description
Xin Wu
Created attachment 207084 [details]
Ldap Green Thread
Created attachment 207085 [details]
screenshot
still same issue on 201111210901's build. defer this, because box is not the recommended layout, use Gridlayout instead. Eric, could you try GridLayout to see if there is any issue? This defect is not caused by Box widget. It is a generation problem for array.
There is a work-around to bypass this problem. Go to SampleLib.egl, change the following function from
function getLogin() returns(Widget[])
syslib.writeStdout("getLogin");
login Login{};
return(new Widget[1] {login.commonBox});
end
function getCustomerData() returns(Widget[])
syslib.writeStdout("getCustomerData");
customer CustomerData{};
return(new Widget[1] {customer.commonBox});
end
function getEmployeeData() returns(Widget[])
syslib.writeStdout("getEmployeeData");
employee EmployeeData{};
return(new Widget[1] {employee.commonBox});
end
To:
function getLogin() returns(Widget[])
syslib.writeStdout("getLogin");
login Login{};
return(new Widget[] {login.commonBox});
end
function getCustomerData() returns(Widget[])
syslib.writeStdout("getCustomerData");
customer CustomerData{};
return(new Widget[] {customer.commonBox});
end
function getEmployeeData() returns(Widget[])
syslib.writeStdout("getEmployeeData");
employee EmployeeData{};
return(new Widget[] {employee.commonBox});
end
Notice that, the problem happens when the array length is specified. This problem also happens in JavaGen.
I open another defect 366495 with a simpler test case.
Hi Xin, As discussed in bug 366495, we don't think this is a defect. I think you should change the test case as described in comment 4 Thanks. Closed this bug as comment #5 |