On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 17:53:38 GMT, Ambarish Rapte <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The fix looks good. I'll take a closer look at the unit test later. >> >> Speaking of tests...since the addition of the `TabPane` reordering logic was >> a victim of the already-existing leak in the `viewOrderChildren` list in >> `Parent`, it should be possible to write a test case using a Group node and >> a few Shape nodes, using setViewOrder directly on the Group node (this would >> be in addition to the system test you wrote). Can you take a look at adding >> one? It might even be possible to do it as a `javafx.graphics` module unit >> test rather than a system test, although you would need to see if the bug >> reproduced there (I suspect it will). > >> >> >> The fix looks good. I'll take a closer look at the unit test later. >> >> Speaking of tests...since the addition of the `TabPane` reordering logic was >> a victim of the already-existing leak in the `viewOrderChildren` list in >> `Parent`, it should be possible to write a test case using a Group node and >> a few Shape nodes, using setViewOrder directly on the Group node (this would >> be in addition to the system test you wrote). Can you take a look at adding >> one? It might even be possible to do it as a `javafx.graphics` module unit >> test rather than a system test, although you would need to see if the bug >> reproduced there (I suspect it will). > > Hello Kevin, > The bug can be reproduced with system test written using `Group` and `Shape` > which is very similar to `TabPaneHeaderLeakTest` test. but it seems the bug > is not reproducible with unit test. I tried a unit test very similar to the > newly added system test `ShapeViewOrderLeakTest`, but looks like > `Parent.viewOrderChildren` list does not get populated and so the issue does > not occur. > The bug can be reproduced with system test written using `Group` and `Shape` > which is very similar to `TabPaneHeaderLeakTest` test. but it seems the bug > is not reproducible with unit test. I tried a unit test very similar to the > newly added system test `ShapeViewOrderLeakTest`, but looks like > `Parent.viewOrderChildren` list does not get populated and so the issue does > not occur. Did you run a pulse? That would be needed in order to sync the changes down to the peer. In any event, it is fine to use a system test if you can't get it to fail with a unit test. I have three cleanup comments that are apply to both of the new tests. The first is the most important of these. 1. Test classes should not extend from `javafx.application.Application`. You should use a nested class that extends Application. See [this comment on PR #34](https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/34#pullrequestreview-322619657) for at least one reason why. 2. The initFX method can be simplified using a pattern we've adopted in our newer tests. See [QuadraticCssTimeTest.java](https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/blob/jfx14/tests/system/src/test/java/test/javafx/scene/QuadraticCssTimeTest.java#L84) 3. Most tests run `startupLatch::countDown` in a `Platform.runLater` call. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/79
