[11] RFR: 8202553: Update FXLauncherTest as part of removing JavaFX from JDK

[Kumar Srinivasan]

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 TEST_SRC = System.getProperty("test.src");

Since this test extends TestHelper, it already inits a global constant 
TEST_SOURCE_DIR
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
>