In general, I would say it's OK to rely on existing tests for trivial
refactoring, that is a refactoring where it seems fairly obvious that
there are not going to be changes in behavior (even if such tests may be
inadequate). For less trivial refactoring, if there are clearly missing
tests, I
... if changes are "just" a re-arrangement of code (like
https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/6 - 8207957: TableSkinUtils should
not contain actual code implementation)?
In an ideal world, there would be a safety-net of tests (they would
have been written at the time the old code was
On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 08:16:59 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 07:14:48 GMT, Ajit Ghaisas wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:51:02 GMT, Jeanette Winzenburg
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The pull request has been updated with additional changes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Added
The pull request has been updated with additional changes.
Added commits:
- fbdea3df: changed test to compile under oldish junit
Changes:
- all: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/20/files
- new: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/20/files/92cd944e..fbdea3df
All,
I am following issue JDK-8089514 [1] given that I have a custom
implementation for listening focusLost and committing the value in a
TableCell (which doesn't work reliable).
I believe having a solution in JavaFX default code itself would be
desirable.
Hence, I was wondering whether
a)
On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 07:14:48 GMT, Ajit Ghaisas wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:51:02 GMT, Jeanette Winzenburg
> wrote:
>
>> The pull request has been updated with additional changes.
>>
>>
>>
>> Added commits:
>> - 92cd944e: changed as requested in review
>>
>> Changes:
>>
