On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 15:00:17 GMT, Alexey Ivanov <aiva...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> test/jdk/javax/swing/JButton/bug4323121.java line 69:
>>
>>> 67: SwingUtilities.invokeAndWait(() -> {
>>> 68: button = new TestButton("gotcha");
>>> 69: button.addMouseMotionListener(eventHandler);
>>
>> Don't think it is required anymore to add `MouseMotionListener`.
>
> I just kept it because it was there. When the event handler extends
> `MouseAdapter`, there are no additional methods to override.
>
> However, you're right, `MouseMotionListener` is not needed.
Since you are simplifying the test, I guess this can be considered.
>> test/jdk/javax/swing/JButton/bug4323121.java line 70:
>>
>>> 68: button = new TestButton("gotcha");
>>> 69: button.addMouseMotionListener(eventHandler);
>>> 70: button.addMouseListener(eventHandler);
>>
>> You may get rid of `eventHandler` object (provided MouseMotionListener is
>> not required) by adding the mouse listener similar to WindowFocusListener
>> where you used WindowAdapter class and override WindowGainedFocus method.
>>
>> button.addMouseListener(new MouseAdapter() {
>> @Override
>> public void mouseEntered(MouseEvent e) {
>> if (button.getModel().isArmed()) {
>> modelArmed = true;
>> }
>> mouseEntered.countDown();
>> }
>> });
>
> Yes, it's an option.
>
> I used the same approach in #21474 where the test object serves as an event
> handler. This avoids anonymous classes which add indentation.
Yeah, this is an option. As I mentioned earlier that MouseMotionListener is not
needed, so creating an eventHandler object may not be of great use. I agree if
more than one listener needs to be added, creating an eventHandler object is a
good idea.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21475#discussion_r1799716318
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21475#discussion_r1799715177
