The fix looks good to me.
Thanks,
Alexandr.
On 8/28/2014 7:04 PM, Alexander Zvegintsev wrote:
Still looks good to me.
--
Thanks,
Alexander.
On 08/28/2014 06:38 PM, Yuri Nesterenko wrote:
Thank you Alexander!
new version:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~yan/8055664/webrev.01
-yan
On 08/28/2014 05:59 PM, Alexander Zvegintsev wrote:
Hello Yuri,
IIUC, this test may fail on Ubuntu due to JDK-8036915 [1].
Oh yes, I even put it to @bug tag.
the fix looks good to me in general, but I have some minor comments:
91 testEverything = false; // NB: change this to true to test
everything
I think this line can be removed and comment should be at line 41. As
for me,
it is easier to find this "switch" at the beginning of the test.
Some time ago there was a discussion about too long tests,
mostly in VM I believe, and somebody suggested a systemwide switch to
choose between long and short versions.
I removed line 91.
Add empty lines between functions for more readability, please.
OK.
Text in placeholders looks odd for me: "Hidden is java.awt.Label". I
think that we should
change order to something like "java.awt.Label is hidden."
There should be comma after is to make it less odd:-)
Changed, though!
New version:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~yan/8055664/webrev.01
-yan
[1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8036915
--
Thanks,
Alexander.
On 08/26/2014 10:42 AM, Yuri Nesterenko wrote:
A polite reminder!
On 08/20/2014 04:09 PM, Yuri Nesterenko wrote:
Hi team,
please review this test update in jdk9:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~yan/8055664/webrev.00
( https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8055664 )
There's a single test made out of 14 old internal functional tests.
Existing tests do verify that a Frame (Dialog, JFrame etc.
toplevel) does setLocationRelativeTo(Component) right.
As the number of components * toplevels is rather big,
the test picks randomly just few of them from the lists.
If by chance there will be a failure, a simple option would
allow to run all combinations.
Also, if we'll have a "switch" controlling this selection
behavior, we'll use it here.
Thanks,
-yan
