[11] RFR: 8202553: Update FXLauncherTest as part of removing JavaFX from JDK (original) (raw)

Kevin Rushforth kevin.rushforth at oracle.com
Wed May 9 11:32:01 UTC 2018

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 TESTSRC = System.getProperty("test.src"); Since this test extends TestHelper, it already inits a global constant TESTSOURCEDIR 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

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list