On Tue, 17 Sep 2024 17:28:26 GMT, Harshitha Onkar <hon...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> `positionTestUI()` option is added to PassFailJFrame (PFJ).
>>
>> With this change multiple UI can be positioned using the PFJ new builder
>> pattern by providing implementation for the Functional Interface
>> `PositionWindows.positionTestWindows(List<? extends Window>
>> testWindows,InstructionUI instructionUI)` in the test code.
>>
>> Since the position implementation is done in test code it allows flexibility
>> as the user can add custom positioning code as per test UI requirements.
>>
>> Usage:
>>
>> PassFailJFrame.builder()
>> .title("Test Instructions")
>> .instructions(INSTRUCTIONS)
>> .rows(int)
>> .columns(int)
>> .testUI(<TestClass::createAndShowUI>)
>> .positionTestUI(<TestClass::positionMultiTestUI>)
>> .build()
>> .awaitAndCheck();
>>
>> where positionMultiTestUI is the implementation for positioning of multiple
>> test windows for `PositionWindows.positionTestWindows(List<? extends Window>
>> testWindows,InstructionUI instructionUI)`
>>
>> @aivanov-jdk has demonstrated custom test UI positioning in this PR:
>> **[8294156: Demo positioning of multiple test
>> windows](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/15721)**
>
> Harshitha Onkar has updated the pull request incrementally with one
> additional commit since the last revision:
>
> doc update
> I think that this can be improved by adding some predefined positionTestUI
> functions, like in the #15721 (we can borrow them from it). For example,
> consider adding `PositionWindowsLib.java`(or maybe a nested public static
> class for `PassFailJFrame` to avoid extra `@build` clause), which has
> functions something like
>
> ```java
> .positionTestUI(PositionWindowsLib::positionHH) // aka
> TwoWindowsHH.positionTestUI
> .positionTestUI(PositionWindowsLib::positionHV) // aka
> TwoWindowsHV.positionTestUI
> ...
> ```
@azvegint Valid suggestion and re-usability of common layouts is better than
having to repeat it in the test code. This will be added as next step to
PassFailJFrame iterative improvement as @aivanov-jdk suggested.
-------------
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21023#issuecomment-2356507943
