I get it. So I will try to change the code so that it supports both the old behavior (ie by subclassing) and new behavior (ie by styling).
Maurice -----Message d'origine----- De : Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] Envoyé : jeudi 10 octobre 2013 16:56 À : Maurice Amsellem; dev@flex.apache.org Objet : Re: Build failed in Jenkins: flex-sdk_mustella #460 (fixed) On 10/9/13 11:51 PM, "Maurice Amsellem" <maurice.amsel...@systar.com> wrote: >Understood. > >In this case, I' am changing the test code so that it matches the >existing baseline, not changing the baseline. >So it should not have any impact. Maybe I'm not understanding you, but IMO, the test code represents a user's application. Every time you change the test code, it means that some number of our customers will also have to change their application code. For sure, sometimes that number is 0 because the test is incorrectly written, and sometimes the number is small and we decide the fix is more important (and in the case of a security issue, it doesn't matter how many people it breaks). If I understand this thread, some number of folks with custom skins may have to tweak their skins, otherwise they may notice a one pixel shift in the callout position. Again, I'm not saying don't do that, but consider whether that is an acceptable result. You may have the option of using a version flag to allow folks to get back to old behavior. -Alex
