<AWT Dev> [9] Review request for 8055664: move 14 tests about setLocationRelativeTo to jdk

[Alexander Zvegintsev]

Still looks good to me.

--
Thanks,
Alexander.

On 08/28/2014 06:38 PM, Yuri Nesterenko wrote:
>
> Thank you Alexander!
>
> new version:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~yan/8055664/webrev.01
>
> -yan
>
>
> On 08/28/2014 05:59 PM, Alexander Zvegintsev wrote:
>> Hello Yuri,
>>
>> IIUC, this test may fail on Ubuntu due to JDK-8036915 [1].
> Oh yes, I even put it to @bug tag.
>
>>
>> the fix looks good to me in general, but I have some minor comments:
>>
>> 91         testEverything = false; // NB: change this to true to test
>> everything
>>
>> I think this line can be removed and comment should be at line 41. As
>> for me,
>> it is easier to find this "switch" at the beginning of the test.
> Some time ago there was a discussion about too long tests,
> mostly in VM I believe, and somebody suggested a systemwide switch to
> choose between long and short versions.
> I removed line 91.
>
>>
>> Add empty lines between functions for more readability, please.
> OK.
>
>>
>> Text in placeholders looks odd for me: "Hidden is java.awt.Label". I
>> think that we should
>> change order to something like  "java.awt.Label is hidden."
> There should be comma after is to make it less odd:-)
> Changed, though!
>
> New version:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~yan/8055664/webrev.01
>
> -yan
>>
>>
>> [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8036915
>>
>> -- 
>> Thanks,
>> Alexander.
>>
>> On 08/26/2014 10:42 AM, Yuri Nesterenko wrote:
>>> A polite reminder!
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08/20/2014 04:09 PM, Yuri Nesterenko wrote:
>>>> Hi team,
>>>>
>>>> please review this test update in jdk9:
>>>>
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~yan/8055664/webrev.00
>>>>
>>>> ( https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8055664 )
>>>>
>>>> There's a single test made out of 14 old internal functional tests.
>>>> Existing tests do verify that a Frame (Dialog, JFrame etc.
>>>> toplevel) does setLocationRelativeTo(Component) right.
>>>>
>>>> As the number of components * toplevels is rather big,
>>>> the test picks randomly just few of them from the lists.
>>>> If by chance there will be a failure, a simple option would
>>>> allow to run all combinations.
>>>> Also, if we'll have a "switch" controlling this selection
>>>> behavior, we'll use it here.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> -yan
>>>
>>
>