On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 13:04:24 GMT, Marius Hanl <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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). I updated the comment, maybe that is better ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/2179#discussion_r3396746754
