8264728: When use chinese IME, the candidate box isn't moved with caret of JTextArea

[quantum6]

JDK-8264728 : When use chinese IME, the candidate box isn't moved with caret of JTextArea
Type: Bug
Component: client-libs
Sub-Component: java.awt:i18n
Affected Version: 8,9,15,16
Priority: P3
Status: Open
Resolution: Unresolved
OS: linux
CPU: x86_64

---

Progress

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

Issue

• JDK-8264728: When use chinese IME, the candidate box isn't moved with caret of JTextArea

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev.git pull/281/head:pull/281
$ git checkout pull/281

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/281
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev.git pull/281/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 281

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 281

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/281.diff

Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back quantum6! 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]

@quantum6 Unknown command sign - for a list of valid commands use /help.

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 00: Full (bf52e12c)

[jerboaa]

@quantum6 From the bug description it sounds like this is an issue in later JDKs as well, please fix it in the latest development tree first where it reproduces (possibly JDK 21 at https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/), Once a fix is in later JDKs, the fix can get backported. So in this case it would be something like:

1. Fix in JDK XX where XX is the latest JDK where this reproduces
2. Backport to older JDK YY where YY is > 8 (LTS versions and latest STS seems sufficient).
3. Come back with a backport to 8 once 1 and 2 are done.

Thanks!

[gnu-andrew]

@quantum6 From the bug description it sounds like this is an issue in later JDKs as well, please fix it in the latest development tree first where it reproduces (possibly JDK 21 at https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/), Once a fix is in later JDKs, the fix can get backported. So in this case it would be something like:

1. Fix in JDK `XX` where `XX` is the latest JDK where this reproduces

2. Backport to older JDK `YY` where `YY` is `< 8` (LTS versions and latest STS seems sufficient).

3. Come back with a backport to 8 once 1 and 2 are done.

Thanks!

Yes, as I also mentioned here: openjdk/jdk8u#31 (comment)

The fix either needs to be resolved in the main JDK development tree first, or we need to know why an 8u only fix is needed (e.g. code has changed in later versions and bug is fixed by a change that can't be backported as is)

[quantum6]

Yes, as I also mentioned here: openjdk/jdk8u#31 (comment)

The fix either needs to be resolved in the main JDK development tree first, or we need to know why an 8u only fix is needed (e.g. code has changed in later versions and bug is fixed by a change that can't be backported as is)

All jdk versions have this problem. Many people are confused by it. I fixed it on jdk8u (for Taishan Office). I had created a PR on jdk and I hope it can be integrated ASAP. Then I will commit to other versions.
Thanks.

openjdk/jdk#13055

[quantum6]

Yes, as I also mentioned here: openjdk/jdk8u#31 (comment)

The fix either needs to be resolved in the main JDK development tree first, or we need to know why an 8u only fix is needed (e.g. code has changed in later versions and bug is fixed by a change that can't be backported as is)

All jdk versions have this problem. I fixed it on jdk8u (for TSIT Office). I had created a PR on jdk, I hope it can be integrated ASAP.
Thanks.

openjdk/jdk#13055

[zzambers]

2. Backport to older JDK `YY` where `YY` is `< 8` (LTS versions and latest STS seems sufficient).

shouldn't there be: YY is >8 ?

[zzambers]

@quantum6 If all jdks are affected, it currently basically means, that you should first fix it in jdk, then gradually backport it to jdk17u-dev, jdk11u-dev and jdk8u-dev. (In that order; because 17,11,8 are current LTS versions)

(@jerboaa please correct me if I am wrong)

[quantum6]

@quantum6 If all jdks are affected, it currently basically means, that you should first fix it in jdk, then gradually backport it to jdk17u-dev, jdk11u-dev and jdk8u-dev. (In that order; because 17,11,8 are current LTS versions)
OK. I hope the PR can be processed ASAP.
Thanks.

[jerboaa]

2. Backport to older JDK `YY` where `YY` is `< 8` (LTS versions and latest STS seems sufficient).

shouldn't there be: YY is >8 ?

Correct. Updated the comment.

[bridgekeeper]

@quantum6 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!

[bridgekeeper]

@quantum6 This pull request has been inactive for more than 8 weeks and will now be automatically closed. If you would like to continue working on this pull request in the future, feel free to reopen it! This can be done using the /open pull request command.