On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 12:52:18 GMT, Christopher Schnick <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Yes, thats why my idea is to assign it once here and just reuse it below > > I mean at this point we have 3 almost identical duplicated tests, I don't > think that would make a big difference when it comes to code quality. > Especially considering that one still needs to be aware of the side effect of > calling that method. If I don't call it, I don't need to think about it Okay, I wonder if we should either replace or rename the method in the test then. If it would just be called updateXXX and returns a display node, that will look better and is more honest about the side effect (because the PR before I was not aware of the side effect - so it already tricked me when reading the test) I think having 3 similar tests is not a problem, we have that a lot for tables as well. There is just no better way, many tests often require a similar setup. The advantage is that if some fail, you know exactly what is broken (unless they are called jdkXYZ or rtXYZ). ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/2179#discussion_r3396074041
