On 5/10/18 5:59 AM, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
Here is the updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8202553/webrev.01/
+1
This stripped down version of FX test module looks better. FYI. @build
/* will build a module under the source directory of the test.
What you have (doing the
Hi Kevin,
Thanks for making the changes, this is very manageable and maintainable
going forward. :)
Looks good!.
Thanks
Kumar
On 5/10/2018 5:59 AM, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
Here is the updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8202553/webrev.01/
As discussed offline, this strips
Here is the updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8202553/webrev.01/
As discussed offline, this strips down the Mock LauncherImpl class to
just allow testing of the inputs. There is no need for it to try to
mimic the behavior of the FX launcher. It is sufficient to test the
I'll work up a new version of the webrev that addresses your feedback,
and strip down the mockfx classes to the minimum needed to support the
test cases.
-- Kevin
On 5/8/2018 3:52 PM, Kumar Srinivasan wrote:
Hi Kevin,
Please review the following test fix:
Hi Kevin,
Please review the following test fix:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202553
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8202553/webrev.00/
FXLauncherTest.java:
57 private static final String TEST_SRC = System.getProperty("test.src");
Since this test extends TestHelper, it
Please review the following test fix:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202553
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8202553/webrev.00/
This modifies the existing FXLauncherTest as follows:
1. Reverse the check for the presence of the
javafx.application.Application class and fail the test
