On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 21:00:56 GMT, Alisen Chung <ach...@openjdk.org> wrote:

>> @alisenchung 
>> 
>> An automated test can be created by adding Component Listener to the 
>> reproducer test in JBS. The following code throws Runtime Exception if the 
>> frame was visible at the original size of 200 x 200 before it was maximized.
>> 
>> 
>> frame.addComponentListener(new ComponentAdapter() {
>>     @Override
>>     public void componentResized(ComponentEvent e) {
>>         if (e.getComponent().getSize().equals(new Dimension(200, 200))) {
>>             throw new RuntimeException("Test Failed! " +
>>                     "Original Frame size was visible before maximizing");
>>         }
>>     }
>> });
>
>> @alisenchung
>> 
>> An automated test can be created by adding Component Listener to the 
>> reproducer test in JBS. The following code throws Runtime Exception if the 
>> frame was visible at the original size of 200 x 200 before it was maximized.
>> 
>> ```
>> frame.addComponentListener(new ComponentAdapter() {
>>     @Override
>>     public void componentResized(ComponentEvent e) {
>>         if (e.getComponent().getSize().equals(new Dimension(200, 200))) {
>>             throw new RuntimeException("Test Failed! " +
>>                     "Original Frame size was visible before maximizing");
>>         }
>>     }
>> });
>> ```
> 
> When I run the test manually after the change I'm not able to see a small 
> window anymore. Won't this code always fail since you listen for a resize 
> event then check the size of the window right before the window is resized?

@alisenchung  I think another option would be to override `componentShown()` of 
 ComponentListener and check the size of the frame returned when it is made 
visible. With original code, I think it would show 200x200 and with the fix , 
the maximized frame size. I haven't tested this option though.


@Override
 public void componentShown(ComponentEvent e) {
        System.out.println(e.getComponent().getSize());
    }

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15236#issuecomment-1678195782

Reply via email to