Hi Pavel, Thanks,
I've pushed to the awt gate. Cheers, Mario 2012/5/24 Pavel Porvatov <pavel.porva...@oracle.com>: > Hi Mario, > > >> Hi Pavel, >> >> I uploaded a new patch here: >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~neugens/6800513/webrev.02/ >> >> I don't really understand why one should call internal private api >> (realSync) when a public API is there (Toolkit.sync), that *should* do >> the same (even if it obviously doesn't). > > Why do you think they should do the same? > >> >> Anyway, I hope this version is good enough for you to go in. > > Now the test looks without functionality problems but there are some code > style mistakes and unnecessary code. E.g. duplicate code in the main method, > class field passing as method parameters (the getPopup method) etc. > > To avoid time spending I modified your test a little bit (see attach) and > approve the fix. > > Regards, Pavel > >> Please, let me know what you think, >> Mario >> >> 2012/5/4 Pavel Porvatov<pavel.porva...@oracle.com>: >>> >>> Hi Mario, >>> >>>> 2012/4/21 Pavel Porvatov<pavel.porva...@oracle.com>: >>>> >>>> Hi Pavel, >>>> >>>>> About the test: >>>>> 1. Now is 2012 :) >>>> >>>> Ops... >>>> >>>>> 2. You must access to Swing components only from the EDT (see >>>>> clickOnComponent(final Component comp) and other methods) >>>> >>>> Not sure if I understand correctly, all the access is done in the EDT >>>> already, unless I became very blind! >>>> >>>> The tests are run from the EDT, only exception is checkPopup, which >>>> just read a value after the execution, and I think this should be >>>> safe. >>> >>> Yes, I missed the fact that the clickOnComponent method invoked on EDT. >>> That's because you used robot.delay(50) in the method. There is no sense >>> to >>> use sleep methods on the EDT therad: you just freeze any event >>> handling.... >>> >>>>> b. >>>>> loop >>>>> final Map<String, Boolean> tests = new HashMap<>(); >>>>> tests.put("javax.swing.PopupFactory$HeavyWeightPopup", false); >>>>> tests.put("javax.swing.PopupFactory$LightWeightPopup", true); >>>>> >>>>> for (final String test : tests.keySet()) { >>>>> can be replaced by two simple invocations >>>> >>>> Actually, this means duplicate more code or introduce another method, >>>> not sure if this makes the code cleaner, but I can do it if you prefer >>>> so. >>>> >>>>> c. NoSuchFieldException, SecurityException, IllegalArgumentException, >>>>> IllegalAccessException can be replaced by Exception >>>>> d. >>>>> robot.delay(50); >>>>> robot.mousePress(InputEvent.BUTTON1_MASK); >>>>> robot.delay(50); >>>>> Just use Robot#setAutoDelay >>>>> >>>>> etc. >>>>> >>>>> 5. latch must be volitile. After test rewriting I think this variable >>>>> can >>>>> be >>>>> removed at all >>>>> >>>>> Note that tests should be readable and simplest as far as possible >>>> >>>> The reason why the test is so complex is that I wanted to throw the >>>> exact exception and don't mix the reflection related stuff with the >>>> real test exception, that also basically means I don't want to save >>>> the exception and rethrow it later on (I've seen this in some other >>>> tests), I rather prefer to make this obvious and not hidden, but of >>>> course the code gets longer, and everything is complicated by the EDT >>>> invocations. >>> >>> In your case reflection exception is also test failing. >>> >>>> Also, I'm not particularly happy with the use of reflection to access >>>> the filed and check the class name, since we're testing against an >>>> implementation detail, but I don't know how else I should test that we >>>> create an heavy weight window (which is really also just an >>>> implementation detail that leaked through the code up to the user, >>>> nobody should ever care about heavy weight and lightweight imho), so >>>> if you have a smarter idea, I would be happy to change the code. >>> >>> I'm also trying to avoid reflection in tests but I don't see another >>> solution here >>> >>>> I will try to refactor the code but I would like to not invest >>>> significant time in that, I'll send you a revised patch later >>>> (hopefully!) >>> >>> Yes, and that's the reason to write first version of test without any >>> errors. The test shouldn't have errors, because if it fails (on some >>> platforms with very specific configuration) we have to fix it (therefore >>> we >>> are trying to keep all tests as clear and short as possible)... >>> >>> Your test is still have problems. E.g. setVisible invocation doesn't >>> guarantee that right after method Frame becomes visible (platforms >>> dependent >>> behaviour). You can take a look at good test examples in repository, e.g. >>> here >>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/awt/jdk/rev/dfa2ea47257d >>> >>> Regards, Pavel >>> >> >> > -- pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF IcedRobot: www.icedrobot.org Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/ Read About us at: http://planet.classpath.org OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/ Please, support open standards: http://endsoftpatents.org/
