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:
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 already inits a global constant
TEST_SOURCE_DIR
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/file/06d5b1f66553/test/jdk/tools/launcher/TestHelper.java#l120
--------
209 // javac -d mods/javafx.graphics mockfx/src/javafx.graphics/**
is not quite accurate does not mention the --source-path
--------
Prefer to avoid array copies in favor of List/ArrayList
228 System.arraycopy(compilerArgs, 0, fxCompilerArgs, 2,
compilerArgs.length); ----- 237 System.arraycopy(cmds, 1, fxCmds, 3,
cmds.length - 1); ditto. -----
Mock JavaFX:
test/jdk/tools/launcher/mockfx/src/javafx.graphics/com/sun/javafx/application/*
I have a general concern with the above classes, it seems to be overly
complicated for a simple launcher test(s) to prevent regressions. I
think this should be simply testing the logic in
LauncherHelper.FXHelper, specifically this table:
https://java.se.oracle.com/source/xref/jdk-jdk/open/src/java.base/share/classes/sun/launcher/LauncherHelper.java#852
Alan, Mandy, what is your take on Mock JavaFX ?
Thanks
Kumar
This modifies the existing FXLauncherTest as follows:
1. Reverse the check for the presence of the
javafx.application.Application class and fail the test if present
2. Create a "mock" javafx.graphics module with a mocked up version of
the few classes needed to validate the FX launcher functionality
3. Remove the "intermittent" and "headful" keywords, since neither
apply any more
4. Remove the test from the problem list
Thanks.
-- Kevin
