[FIX] selection: drag and drop resized cols and rows #5449
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
Previously, resizing a column or row and then dragging it to a new position (right or down) did not correctly resize the dropped column/row This issue occurred because the resizing logic incorrectly used the original index of the column or row instead of adjusting for its new position. The correct approach requires using `index + 1` to account for the updated position, but the implementation used the unadjusted index, leading to the bug. Task: 4454025
|
|
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Description:
Previously, resizing a column or row and then dragging it to a new position (right or down) did not correctly resize the dropped column/row
This issue occurred because the resizing logic incorrectly used the original index of the column or row instead of adjusting for its new position. The correct approach requires using
index + 1for "after" operations to account for the updated position, but the implementation used the unadjusted index, leading to the bug.Task: 4454025
review checklist