On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 09:58:38 GMT, Jeanette Winzenburg <faste...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Hmm, but leaving a test without an assert is also bad. You have any >> suggestions? >> I may can add another editable test, which will pass before and after. > >> >> >> Hmm, but leaving a test without an assert is also bad. You have any >> suggestions? > > Not aware of such a rule - if we fix code throwing an exception there is not > much to assert, except that it fails before and passes after. And paddling > back a bit, I think a separate test for the back switch would be overdoing it > :) > > @Test > ... > // configure: just as you do > comboBox.setEditable(true) > ... > // the test: just as you do - switch to false > comboBox.setEditable(false) > // safe-guard against future implementation changes: switch back to > true > comboBox.setEditable(true) > // end of test There is no rule, but in my opinion it is also not a good practise. I agree it's also not a big problem, but in general a test should check something. And I think it's not a problem to check, that we still have no value inside ComboBox, even though is not really related. In JUnit 5, there would be `assertDoesNotThrow​()` for that usecase. But I may found a solution for our version, there is `@Test(expected = Test.None.class)`, which basically tells us explicitly, that we don't expect any exception (and so, the code under test did throw an exception one time in the past). ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/557
