Caret position fix : Include PR #1074 #1080
Conversation
|
Thank you! It's a very thoughtful debugging process, and the explanation is very valuable! |
|
I encounter a slightly delay when using low priority dispatching option, but I think it's not significant in release version. |
|
These changes are all tested and ready to roll? |
…y so the QueryTextBox has the new value when the code is executed
taooceros
force-pushed
the
caret-position-fix
branch
from
225c380 to
47ee718
Compare
I think it is ok to roll. There's nothing bugs here, but only a small tradeoff to reduce the priority. Probably in the future we can adjust the event better. |
|
From my experience of the version after the fix, it does create some interesting behavior. Previously I could paste things as fast as possible, and the change query will still work, but after the pr it would be possible to paste too quickly so that the change query will append the query after the pasted text. |
|
Make a new issue for this? |
It's not really a serious bug and I have no clues whether it can be addressed. |
|
Yeah ok, I haven't started testing the new changes in Dev yet but will keep an eye out. |
Caret position fix : Include PR #1074
* Merge pull request #1061 from Flow-Launcher/remove_winget_ci * Merge pull request #991 from Flow-Launcher/context_menu_plugin_site * Merge pull request #1080 from gissehel/caret-position-fix * Caret position fix : Include PR #1074 * Merge pull request #1283 from nachmore/dev * Merge pull request #1296 from nachmore/bug_1284 * Merge pull request #1294 from Flow-Launcher/pluginInfoMultipleActionKeyword * Merge pull request #1299 from nachmore/bug_1269 * Plugin Exception Draft (#1147) * Merge pull request #1355 from onesounds/LimitWidth * Merge pull request #1088 from Flow-Launcher/add_spanish_latin_america * Merge pull request #1387 from Flow-Launcher/fix_exception_duplicate_url_opening * Merge pull request #1390 from Flow-Launcher/issue_1371 * Merge pull request #1391 from Flow-Launcher/issue_1366
4 participants
I include the PR #1074 because they both tried to address the same problem. I don't know if there are cases where #1074 applies or not, but it's more robust code, thus better.
Reason for this PR are explained in various comments of #1074
Should close #1025 close #1070 and close #1078