Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Copilot review overview
🟡 Changes recommended
Layout is not retried when the control becomes visible, potentially leaving stale bounds and scrollbar state.
Get a fresh assessment by requesting another Copilot review.
Review effort: Lite
Findings: 1
Open (1)
What changed in this PR
Skips layout recalculation for invisible text areas to reduce unnecessary work.
Changes:
- Adds a visibility guard to
UpdateLayout().
| File | Description |
|---|---|
Project/Src/Gui/TextAreaControl.cs |
Avoids layout updates when invisible. |
💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.
Comment on lines
+172
to
173
| if (TextArea == null || !Visible) | ||
| return; |
mstv
marked this pull request as draft
September 20, 2026 15:44
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
Sign up for free
to 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
see also #64 (comment)