On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 06:54:25 GMT, Srinivas Mandalika <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> test/jdk/java/awt/EventDispatchThread/InterruptEDTTest.java line 66:
>>
>>> 64: frame.setVisible(true);
>>> 65: });
>>> 66: ((sun.awt.SunToolkit)
>>> (Toolkit.getDefaultToolkit())).realSync();
>>
>> You can use the Robot.waitForIdle instead of realSync since jdk9.
>
> There was a comment in the original code before the realSync() call that was
> removed, which perhaps should have been left as is.
> // cannot substitute with robot.waitForIdle() presumably because of
> flushPendingEvents() there
> My understanding of above is that for simulating the test scenario - which is
> - Events (on line 75,76,77) are triggered and while these are potentially not
> yet complete(as they are wrapped in an invokeLater), the edt is interrupted.
>
> When run on jdk7u6 - the UI hangs and SOP of line 59 is not invoked.
> When run on jdk7u361 b01 the SOP on line 59 is printed and also the test
> passed.
>
> waitForIdle here will trigger the flushPendingEvents internally before the
> edt interrupt call -and that would eliminate any possibility of simulating
> the above scenario.
Then please double-check how robot.waitForIdle() and realSync() affect the
test, since both call the flushPendingEvents(), why there is a difference?
* robot.waitForIdle()->SunToolkit.flushPendingEvents();
* realSync()->waitForIdle()->flushPendingEvents
>> test/jdk/java/awt/EventDispatchThread/InterruptEDTTest.java line 80:
>>
>>> 78: });
>>> 79: } catch (Exception e) {
>>> 80: e.printStackTrace();
>>
>> Why do we skip an exception here and in another place below?
>
> As described in the comment above, the intent of the test is to validate the
> absence of a failure via a test hang and not via an exception.
But if some exception will be thrown there it should not ignore it and just
pass.
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/10784
