On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 15:10:35 GMT, Johan Vos <j...@openjdk.org> wrote: >>> The hard values have been changed a number of times, and I believe it is >>> not really a good metric. >> >> I agree completely. >> >>> Rather than requiring that the amount of calls should be a fixed number, I >>> think it makes more sense to ensure that the amount of calls stays within >>> reasonable boundaries, and is not growing exponentially when we add >>> linearly more items, for example. >> >> My point is exactly this. I see that as part of this PR, you have added the >> upper boundary (rather than a fixed number) for assertions. I am asking >> whether we need a lower boundary as well? > > I don't think we need a lower boundary. A value of 0 is not a bad thing, as > long as the functional tests are ok. > The lowest possible value is implicitly determined by the usecase, which is > covered by the functional tests.
And in this case, since the value used to be 0 before this fix, I think that's fine. For the other cases would it make sense to have a `> 0` check? Or are those cases for which 0 would be an OK value? ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/683
