Get the top most child of a Component

Hi all,
I’m a Juce newbie trying to understand some basic principle.
I’m trying to retrieve the topmost component child of a given component using getComponentAt method. Seems not to work.

Component *foo = new Component();
Component *bar = new Component();
foo->setBounds(0,0,500,500);
foo->addChildComponent(bar);
bar->setBounds(10,10,400,400);

Component * target = foo->getComponentAt(100, 100);
if (target == NULL)
     DBG("COMPONENT NOT FOUND")

getComponentAt returns null.
What am I doing wrong? Did I misunderstand getComponentAt method ?

getComponentAt only finds visible components!

Sorry, I haven’t post all my code but it’s a bit more complex. Anyway the father component is visible (isVisible() returns true) and the child is correctly inserted with addAndMakeVisible.
I check also the bounds property of both components but still not works

Which could be the problem?

Coordinate might not hit inside the child components bounds (did you set the child size ?)

Yes I set the child size.
To be more specific I’m trying to do this:

I have a Component with inside several Slider .
This component is put inside another object that extends Component (MyComponent : public Component).

every child of MyComponent cannot intercept MouseClicks (setInterceptsMouseClicks(false, false):wink: , so the mouse events reach the MyComponent when I click on its visible childs (the slider). I see everything on the screen correctly.

Now my problem is that inside MyComponent (that implements MouseMove) I have to understand which of its child components would have intercept the mouse click. So I thought to use getComponentAt on its first child ( it’s the Component that has the sliders as children) but it seems not to work.

No… getChildComponentAt is the method that’s used to find out which component a mouse event lands on, and it takes visibility and hit-testing into account. If you want to ignore all of that stuff and only test the component bounds, you’d need to write your own loop to do that.

thanks for the info. I’ll implement my own method