Bug 4736 - MonoTouch.Dialog password fields are non-standard
Summary: MonoTouch.Dialog password fields are non-standard
Alias: None
Product: iOS
Classification: Xamarin
Component: XI runtime ()
Version: 5.2
Hardware: Macintosh Mac OS
: --- normal
Target Milestone: Untriaged
Assignee: Bugzilla
Depends on:
Reported: 2012-04-30 09:21 UTC by Matt Jones
Modified: 2012-05-16 14:19 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Is this bug a regression?: ---
Last known good build:

Notice (2018-05-24): bugzilla.xamarin.com is now in read-only mode.

Please join us on Visual Studio Developer Community and in the Xamarin and Mono organizations on GitHub to continue tracking issues. Bugzilla will remain available for reference in read-only mode. We will continue to work on open Bugzilla bugs, copy them to the new locations as needed for follow-up, and add the new items under Related Links.

Our sincere thanks to everyone who has contributed on this bug tracker over the years. Thanks also for your understanding as we make these adjustments and improvements for the future.

Please create a new report on Developer Community or GitHub with your current version information, steps to reproduce, and relevant error messages or log files if you are hitting an issue that looks similar to this resolved bug and you do not yet see a matching new report.

Related Links:

Description Matt Jones 2012-04-30 09:21:24 UTC
The password entry fields in MonoTouch.Dialog do not behave like the equivalent UITextField. This causes issues with reviewers and users, who prefer the UITextField behaviour (see below).

UITextField shows the last typed character as the original character (for around 1 sec), and the other characters will be shown as **. This is the default behavior of iOS.
Comment 1 Sebastien Pouliot 2012-05-10 16:54:35 UTC
This is due to:
				entry.EditingChanged += delegate {
					FetchValue ();
in Elements.cs. This seems to reset the state so the char-to-circle effect is lost.

It started with https://github.com/migueldeicaza/MonoTouch.Dialog/commit/4cffe144f89fc9fbfe032d56e67a8583c2d641bf

maybe this can be avoided on secure fields ?
Comment 2 Sebastien Pouliot 2012-05-16 14:19:16 UTC
Miguel fixed this in 37236b68f4c8fc6630e3ac28dd02beb6b5275c33

5.2-series: 02a06de59537c6dd9cba5c3ba10b0c6e5a6f2ad1
master: 482888902f405fd2618da52b0a63336222152826