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

[Kevin Rushforth]

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 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
>>
>