Hi Mikhail,
The modified test won't do anything weired, it will test something that meets the spec. However, I
agree that it won't test the original incident found in 1.4 comparing to jdk 1.3. But since we
agreed not to treat it as a regression against the spec, I'm ok with the test removal.
Hi Anton, Oleg.
I vote for removing the test.
Rewriting test just will produce something weired that won't test what
original regression does.
A new test won't be a regression test that check problem was found in
jdk 1.4.
I believe jdk4 and 7 has a lot of difference in focus system and due
th
On 17.11.2014 17:38, Oleg Sukhodolsky wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Anton V. Tarasov
wrote:
On 17.11.2014 17:21, Oleg Sukhodolsky wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Anton V. Tarasov
wrote:
On 17.11.2014 15:01, Oleg Sukhodolsky wrote:
Hi Anton,
the bug was a regression introd
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Anton V. Tarasov
wrote:
> On 17.11.2014 17:21, Oleg Sukhodolsky wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Anton V. Tarasov
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 17.11.2014 15:01, Oleg Sukhodolsky wrote:
Hi Anton,
the bug was a regression introduced in 1.4 (
On 17.11.2014 17:21, Oleg Sukhodolsky wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Anton V. Tarasov
wrote:
On 17.11.2014 15:01, Oleg Sukhodolsky wrote:
Hi Anton,
the bug was a regression introduced in 1.4 (comparing with 1.3.1) this
is why it was fixed and the test was written.
Indeed the spec doe
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Anton V. Tarasov
wrote:
> On 17.11.2014 15:01, Oleg Sukhodolsky wrote:
>>
>> Hi Anton,
>>
>> the bug was a regression introduced in 1.4 (comparing with 1.3.1) this
>> is why it was fixed and the test was written.
>> Indeed the spec doesn't guarantee that the test w
On 17.11.2014 15:01, Oleg Sukhodolsky wrote:
Hi Anton,
the bug was a regression introduced in 1.4 (comparing with 1.3.1) this
is why it was fixed and the test was written.
Indeed the spec doesn't guarantee that the test will work but at the
time we were working on the ticket it was decided that
Hi Anton,
the bug was a regression introduced in 1.4 (comparing with 1.3.1) this
is why it was fixed and the test was written.
Indeed the spec doesn't guarantee that the test will work but at the
time we were working on the ticket it was decided that we should not
allow such regressions.
If (accor
Hi Oleg,
Glad to hear from you :)
On 14.11.2014 18:24, Oleg Sukhodolsky wrote:
Sorry to interrupt you but since I do know the test let me say that
requestFocus() is an important part of the test,
if you are going to replace it with requestFocusInWindow() you
(effectively) remove it from list of
Sorry to interrupt you but since I do know the test let me say that
requestFocus() is an important part of the test,
if you are going to replace it with requestFocusInWindow() you
(effectively) remove it from list of regression tests.
Please check 4369903 bug for more information.
Regards, Oleg.
the test works fine in newer versions of jdk, there's no strong reason
for forward port,
I'll add forward port tasks as low priority tasks.
On 11/14/2014 5:07 PM, Anton V. Tarasov wrote:
Hi Mikhail,
Looks fine for me. Thanks! This was an old one... Do you have any
plans to fix it in 8/9 as we
Hi Mikhail,
Looks fine for me. Thanks! This was an old one... Do you have any plans to fix
it in 8/9 as well?
Regards,
Anton.
On 14.11.2014 18:57, mikhail cherkasov wrote:
Hello all,
Could you please review a simple fix of closed test, the test was moved to open
repo
and requestFocus was re
Hello all,
Could you please review a simple fix of closed test, the test was moved
to open repo
and requestFocus was replaced requestFocusInWindow.
Because "requestFocus" cause infinite war for focus between two windows,
however this
behavior is correct and doesn't violet spec.
[TESTBUG] cl
13 matches
Mail list logo
