{ "id": "62733", "key": "TIMOB-2101", "fields": { "issuetype": { "id": "1", "description": "A problem which impairs or prevents the functions of the product.", "name": "Bug", "subtask": false }, "project": { "id": "10153", "key": "TIMOB", "name": "Titanium SDK/CLI", "projectCategory": { "id": "10100", "description": "Titanium and related SDKs used in application development", "name": "Client" } }, "fixVersions": [ { "id": "11229", "name": "Release 1.5.0 M04", "archived": true, "released": true, "releaseDate": "2010-12-06" } ], "resolution": { "id": "3", "description": "The problem is a duplicate of an existing issue.", "name": "Duplicate" }, "resolutiondate": "2011-04-15T03:10:30.000+0000", "created": "2011-04-15T03:10:28.000+0000", "priority": { "name": "Low", "id": "4" }, "labels": [ "android", "defect", "tableview" ], "versions": [], "issuelinks": [], "assignee": { "name": "dthorp", "key": "dthorp", "displayName": "Don Thorp", "active": true, "timeZone": "America/Los_Angeles" }, "updated": "2017-03-03T06:12:46.000+0000", "status": { "description": "The issue is considered finished, the resolution is correct. Issues which are closed can be reopened.", "name": "Closed", "id": "6", "statusCategory": { "id": 3, "key": "done", "colorName": "green", "name": "Done" } }, "components": [ { "id": "10202", "name": "Android", "description": "Android Platform" } ], "description": "{html}
See Helpdesk\n49591
\nSummary:
\nBut with 1.4.2, the row acts like I have set the\nselectedBackgroundColor manually (Lighthouse Ticket exists if I am\nnot mistaken), ie. if I press on a label that has 100% width, the\nbackground won't change.
Any thoughts on this? What has changed from 1.4.1 to 1.4.2 in\nthe TableViewRow code?
Click handling was corrected. We'll have to figure out how to\npass the \"touch\" through to the native control.
Any news on this? Seems kind of weird this doesn't have top\npriority. Users expect an app created with Titanium to behave like\na real native app - but this makes users think the app creators\nhave done something really wrong.
@Victor, thanks for the heads up.
\nDuplicate of #1509 see for test case.
Don, don't really think it's the best to call this a duplicate\nof #1509, that ticket is now \"fixed-in-qa\", but\nthis problem still appears.
\nThis is a duplicate of #1979 as I said earlier though.
I'll update #1979 to refer to this duplicate.