Fix edge of dot cursor in Java vncviewer #1492
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
This commit changes the color of the edges of the dot cursor in the Java version of vncviewer from fully transparent to white, bringing it in line with the C++ native version.
bphinz
approved these changes
Jul 7, 2022
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
In the Java version of vncviewer, the cursor currently consists of transparent edges and a black square in the middle, which means it is quite likely to be lost in the background when the vncviewer is being used. This PR changes the transparent edges to be of a white non-transparent color instead, which is how the dot cursor looks in the native C++ version of vncviewer as well and makes the cursor more likely to be seen.
Please note that while I ran into this issue while working on PR #1491, this PR is separate from it and fixes a different issue (what I believe to be a bug in this case, whereas the other PR was due to a feature request). In the end, I have decided not to create an issue for this minor bug, but I can create one for bookkeeping reasons if that's better.