- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork785
RemoveAtEnd on TreeViewNodeVector broken#10239
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 ourterms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account
Open
galenelias wants to merge1 commit intomicrosoft:mainChoose a base branch fromgalenelias:fix-treeview-removeatend
base:main
Could not load branches
Branch not found:{{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline, and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Ported an app from UWP to WinUI3 and noticed a bunch of UI 'corruption'in our TreeView control when filtering elements. Tracked it down toTreeView.RootNodes().RemoveAtEnd() always removing the first iteminstead of the last item, which means you are left with a totallyunexpected result, as well as being unable to remove all the items dueto never being able to remove index 0.The bug is due to incorrect parameter passing (ideally unused stackvariable warnings would be enabled and would catch this), where indexwas intialized, but never passed to RemoveAt, causing the`updateItemsSource` boolean to stand in for an index, causing us toalways delete index 0 or 1 instead of N-1.The workaround is to just manually use RemoveAt instead of RemoveAtEnd.
Contributor
MartyIX commentedDec 29, 2024
@codendone Could someone take a look at this PR please? |
riverar approved these changesDec 15, 2025
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account?Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Ported an app from UWP to WinUI3 and noticed a bunch of UI 'corruption' in our TreeView control when filtering elements. Tracked it down to TreeView.RootNodes().RemoveAtEnd() always removing the first item instead of the last item, which means you are left with a totally unexpected result, as well as being unable to remove all the items due to never being able to remove index 0.
The bug is due to incorrect parameter passing (ideally unused stack variable warnings would be enabled and would catch this), where index was intialized, but never passed to RemoveAt, causing the
updateItemsSourceboolean to stand in for an index, causing us to always delete index 0 or 1 instead of N-1.The workaround is to just manually use RemoveAt instead of RemoveAtEnd.
Description
Pass index to RemoveAtIndex call.
Motivation and Context
RemoveAtEnd is totally unusable on TreeView Nodes collections.
How Has This Been Tested?
I have not built or tested this, as the links to setting up and building this repo in the
Setup and build environmentsection of the contributing document is a dead link, and the change is pretty straightforward.Screenshots (if appropriate):
N/A