node.addChildren() won't display newly created node when filter extension is active

[zadam]

Expected and Actual Behavior

I have active filter:

this.tree.filterBranches(node => node.data.noteId === 'XXX');

filter settings is set globally as:

filter: {
    counter: false,
    mode: "hide",
    autoExpand: true
}

I have fully initialized tree and then later I'm adding a new additional node like this:

parentNode.addChildren([
  { ... }
]);

Now what happens is this:

So the new node is not visible, however it is added to the DOM:

It's not visible because it has fancytree-hide class.

Now very interestingly, when I press e.g. arrow down or up (thus changing focused node), this newly created node appears:

the code responsible for setting fancytree-hide is in function nodeRenderStatus:

$span
	.toggleClass("fancytree-match", !!node.match)
	.toggleClass("fancytree-submatch", !!node.subMatchCount)
	.toggleClass(
		"fancytree-hide",
		!(node.match || node.subMatchCount)
	);

And debugger shows that for this newly created node the node.match and node.subMatchCount are both undefined. Node should be displayed because I'm filtering a whole branch and the node must be "matching" because it's being added as a child to the displayed node.

I believe that when I'm adding a new node, filter is for some reason not applied which nodeRenderStatus evaluates as "does not match". When I press some key, node is re-rendered and this time filter is applied and therefore is also displayed.

Environment

• Browser type and version: FF82
• jQuery and jQuery UI versions: 3.5.1, 1.12.1
• Fancytree version: 2.37.0
  enabled/affected extensions:

[mar10]

Does another call to this.tree.filterBranches(node => node.data.noteId === 'XXX'); fix it for you?
In this case I would consider to a a tree.updateFilter() method, a a generic helper, that can be called after modifying operations.

[zadam]

Yes, calling this again after .addChildren() seems to fix the issue, I'll use that as a work around for now, thanks for that.

My only concern with this approach (assuming that .updateFilter() will just recalculate everything) is performance. I imagine that applying filter is an expensive operation on large trees, but perhaps it won't be so bad since no changes (except the addition itself) will have to be rendered.