Skip to content
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 our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix: seeking is broken on smart TV. #6414

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

gjanblaszczyk
Copy link
Member

Description

A proposed fix for #6273

Requirements Checklist

  • Feature implemented / Bug fixed
  • If necessary, more likely in a feature request than a bug fix
    • Change has been verified in an actual browser (Chome, Firefox, IE)
    • Unit Tests updated or fixed
    • Docs/guides updated
    • Example created (starter template on JSBin)
  • Reviewed by Two Core Contributors

// `mouseup` event on a single left click and
// `mousedown` event on pressing a button on the remote controller (Samsung TV)
// have `button` and `buttons` equal to 0
if ((event.type === 'mouseup' || event.type === 'mousedown') &&
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Wonder if we should be adding a click type here too.
Also, whether this affects regular browsers and whether they will now preferentially treat mousedown as the click event rather than mouseup. I guess it depends on how isSingleLeftClick is used specifically. But it could have potential implications on accessibility.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, this is a 'dirty' hack that works but complicates the code and can introduce side effects on some exotic devices. I think it will be better to revert this code changes inside the 'isSingleLeftClick' function and do the change inside the seekbar component itself. Does it sound better for you?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yeah, that does sound like a better approach. Keep hacks as contained as possible 🙂

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have just updated the PR. Does it look better now?

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Apr 7, 2020

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the outdated Things closed automatically by stalebot label Apr 7, 2020
@gkatsev gkatsev added pinned Things that stalebot shouldn't close automatically and removed outdated Things closed automatically by stalebot labels Apr 10, 2020
@brandonocasey brandonocasey added needs: discussion Needs a broader discussion needs: LGTM Needs one or more additional approvals labels Dec 7, 2020
@gkatsev gkatsev removed the needs: LGTM Needs one or more additional approvals label May 10, 2021
@misteroneill misteroneill changed the base branch from master to main May 19, 2022 14:11
@misteroneill misteroneill added needs: updates and removed needs: discussion Needs a broader discussion labels May 19, 2022
@misteroneill misteroneill added the patch This PR can be added to a patch release. label May 23, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
needs: updates patch This PR can be added to a patch release. pinned Things that stalebot shouldn't close automatically
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants