On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 11:42:28 GMT, Marius Hanl <mh...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>>> Hm, is this really needed? >> >> yes, IMO, we want the exact same cleanup for passing/failing tests. So >> either dispose is required always (then need to make sure it's called on >> failure) or not required always (then all its calls would be noise). >> >>> Not sure, are there any side effects by the `StageLoader` like this when a >>> test failed? Just asking since the `StageLoader` is used a lot like this. >> >> don't now (and doesn't matter, what matters is the guaranteed cleanup) - and >> aware of those slightly fishy patterns, we all learn :) Faintly remember >> having discussed the point in a PR (can't find it right now, though), and >> just as faintly remember the outcome was to guarantee the cleanup in new >> tests. > > ah okay. Was just confusing for me since I never read that and I think some > recent PRs still had this pattern, e.g. also the touch table scrolling PR I > had a look at yesterday. > > Maybe for future it makes sense to have an abstract test class with the stage > loader setup already in place. just for reference - found the source of my [faintly remember](https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/337/files/8a6fc1cf6cad2c453de17b71777ddd63fadb539e#r510975640) ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/669
