inline
On 12/13/2022 12:55 AM, John Hendrikx wrote:
Hi all,
I was wondering, is there a reason for the current test setup in the
JavaFX code base?
Currently, tests are all stored under src/test/java under a special
package name prefixed with "test". This is an (IMHO) unusual practice
as normally tests mirror the same packages as their main classes to
aid in testability. Testing a package private class is really hard
because of this and requires the use of a shim -- the shims do mirror
the same package hierarchy as the main classes.
Yes, this was a deliberate decision. We intentionally moved all tests
out of the javafx.* hierarchy, primarily so that they could run in the
unnamed module as part of the JDK 9 modularization and encapsulation
effort, and added the shims to support whitebox testing. See
https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8134760
A few questions related to this:
1) When testing a package private class in the com.sun.* hierarchy, is
it okay to just make the class public (as it is already private API)
so it can be tested without a shim?
In general, yes. If you need to do whitebox testing of a com.sun class,
there is no need to use a shim (although I see that was done in a small
number of cases).
2) Can at least the com.sun.* hierarchy be mirrored in src/test/java
without the "test" package prefix? Again, they're both non-public
packages anyway.
No, that would require running those tests in the javafx.* module and is
not the direction I would want to go.
3) Can we perhaps move all test classes to the package of their main
counterparts, and do away with (probably all) shims?
No.
-- Kevin
--John
