Simon Hausmann

This adds the testing API, but the AccessibleRole is still not documented. It needs to go into a public header file, otherwise doxygen won't look at it. I think I'll...

I don't have a strong opinion on this, but if we every want to ask folks for feedback on an API, I think it makes sense that they have API...

Yep, I also don't like `slint::experimental`. Ok, I'll add a bit comment for the docs for the `slint::testing` namespace it's conditional - better than nothing IMO and good to have...

What do you think about this compromise? (One caveat here is that while the AccessibleRole is now under `slint::testing`, it's not surrounded by `#ifdefs`, but maybe that's an acceptable corner?)

Alternate idea: We include the docs for experimental APIs in the nightly docs, but not in the releases. What do you think?

> Should visit_element be removed. It is a bit redundent since you can do `HasElementHandle::root_element(component).visit_descendants` > > (the only difference is that it visits the root) Yes, I'm in favor...

Going back into draft mode. I'm removing the children bits for now and want to proceed with the matching API that includes descendants but also the other criteria.

I think this is a consequence of #5177 :-(, as it emphasises the quality of the glyph rasterisation even more. Best path forward would probably be to move to cosmic-text,...

Yes, at least I couldn't find it. But what's weird is that I don't quite understand how / why it works. But if the test looks sane to you, too,...

Note to future self: 1. Show 2. GC should not collect 3. Hide 4. GC should collect