On Fri, 29 Oct 2021 04:43:10 GMT, Prasanta Sadhukhan <psadhuk...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> > Regardless, there's value in the test updates, although my existing > > comments on the specifics there still stand. > > Should I pursue with the test updates with this PR as it seems it can be > addressed by product change? Yes. I am not sure what specifics needs to be addressed...Are the below ones the one? Whatever I wrote ! > > > And is an offset of 10 enough ? Its a bit arbitrary and cursors could be a > > larger shape or different orientation > > SInce I am going in opposite direction of cursor by using (-10,-10) I guess > it should be ok since normally cursor as shown in the screencapture, even if > enlarged, willnot encroach on (-10, -10) area unless it's a inverted cursor > wihch I am not sure exist or not. So your assumption is the cursor is an arrow. It could be an X .. in which case your fix won't work of ots anywhere near a 45 degree slope. There's no 100% answer but a larger offset is better and parametrised like // move away from cursor OFFSET-X = -10 OFFSET_Y = -20 or adding code that moves the cursor to window (0,0) before screen captutre .. > > > Shouldn't this use TESTCLASSES or something like that ? > > We have used the same way of ImageIO.write() in jtreg tests OK ..doesn't mean its right please check with jtreg devs etc .. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/6140
