On Thu, 15 May 2025 16:36:28 GMT, Alexey Ivanov <aiva...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>>>However, the CountDownLatch is currently set to 1, which means the test only
>>>waits for the first open/close interaction to complete. As a result, it does
>>>not wait for the second attempt (opening the dialog again and pressing ESC
>>>to close it), because the latch reaches zero after the first attempt.
>> This causes the test to proceed immediately to the validation step:
>> if (fd.isVisible()) {
>> throw new RuntimeException("File Dialog is not closed");
>> }
>>
>> I don't see the existing code ignores the second attempt, that is due to
>> longer delay put after the robot operations.
>> You can add print statements and observe the behavior.
>>
>> However, I agree the countdown latch should be initialize to 2 to behave
>> correctly.
>
>> > However, the CountDownLatch is currently set to 1, which means the test
>> > only waits for the first open/close interaction to complete. As a result,
>> > it does not wait for the second attempt (opening the dialog again and
>> > pressing ESC to close it), because the latch reaches zero after the first
>> > attempt.
>> > This causes the test to proceed immediately to the validation step:
>> > if (fd.isVisible()) {
>> > throw new RuntimeException("File Dialog is not closed");
>> > }
>>
>> I don't see the existing code ignores the second attempt, that is due to
>> longer delay put after the robot operations. You can add print statements
>> and observe the behavior.
>>
>> However, I agree the countdown latch should be initialize to 2 to behave
>> correctly.
>
> Technically, longer delays do add up, yet if it takes longer to display the
> dialog and hide it, it's well possible that the dialog isn't hidden by the
> time the main thread reaches the point where it calls `fd.isVisible()`.
Hello @aivanov-jdk,
I also added the test DoubleActionESCWithGtkDisabled to ensure that the old fix
is still working
Hello @aivanov-jdk,
Please let me know if you're good with the recent changes
-------------
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25184#issuecomment-2922435910
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25184#issuecomment-2956574585
