On Fri, 29 Oct 2021 03:49:04 GMT, Phil Race <p...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> Well .. if you think that's what's needed I suggest you ask the fixer if > they'd prefer to do that themselves first as the owner of this issue. This issue is broader than the cursor, not sure that the test which needs a "tolerance" will be fixed by the hidden cursor. So the cursor is a separate part and could be fixed and especially tested separately. I am still not sure why some of the tests do not work as-is and we need to tweak the scale/tolerance/etc. probably that also some kind of bugs. > Whoever does it there's a bunch of testing needed to validate it including > testing both the cursor size and the screen capture option Sure, I will run some of the combinations and something can be covered by the mach5. > As to the suggestion although Robot is 99% used for testing and no tester > will care at the cursor blinking off and on again I know there are cases > where people have used it for other things and I don't know how long it takes > to capture the screen of a 5K retina display. I would want to be very sure it > is necessary to sacrifice usability by invoking this on all Robot API calls > to compensate for the as yet not understood cases where this is happening > even though it should not be. The "spec" issue can be handled by an update > there. We can even add new API to request (not guarantee) that the cursor be > hidden. We cannot update the spec in the update releases, and the new behavior could be considered as a regression from x64 to aarch64. But yes the possible change of performance should be considered and measured. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/6140
