On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 13:21:26 GMT, Marius Hanl <[email protected]> wrote:
>> This PR fixes the computeSize methods not considering the gap in some cases. >> >> It also fixes a missed spot, in the previous PR for JDK-8092379. >> >> Each fix is covered by simple tests which fail before and work after the >> change. >> >> --------- >> - [x] I confirm that I make this contribution in accordance with the >> [OpenJDK Interim AI Policy](https://openjdk.org/legal/ai). > > modules/javafx.graphics/src/test/java/test/javafx/scene/layout/GridPaneTest.java > line 3174: > >> 3172: >> 3173: static class FixedAreaRegion extends Region { >> 3174: final double AREA = 100*100; > > Suggestion: > > final double AREA = 10000; or perhaps declare `HEIGHT`, `WIDTH`, and `AREA = HEIGHT * WIDTH` (but 100*100 is more meaningful in the context) > modules/javafx.graphics/src/test/java/test/javafx/scene/layout/GridPaneTest.java > line 3215: > >> 3213: >> 3214: assertEquals(70, fixedArea.getWidth()); >> 3215: fixedArea.checkSize(); > > I would rather prefer an accurate assertions here and below. This also makes > it more understandable what the test does IMO. > > The you can also remove the `checkSize` method. > > Suggestion: > > assertEquals(143, fixedArea.getHeight()); > > > or > > Suggestion: > > assertEquals(Math.round(FixedAreaRegion.AREA / 70), > fixedArea.getHeight()); floating point operations might be inexact, so a small tolerance is required in `assertEquals` in general case (and should be anticipated in comparisons). In this test, there is no chance to see fractional scale or non-integer sizes, so we are ok with exact `assertEquals`. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/2187#discussion_r3454082372 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/2187#discussion_r3454075499
