<Swing Dev> Force JPopup to be always heavyweight

[Mario Torre]

Hi Pavel,

Thanks,

I've pushed to the awt gate.

Cheers,
Mario

2012/5/24 Pavel Porvatov <pavel.porvatov at oracle.com>:
> Hi Mario,
>
>
>> Hi Pavel,
>>
>> I uploaded a new patch here:
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~neugens/6800513/webrev.02/
>>
>> I don't really understand why one should call internal private api
>> (realSync) when a public API is there (Toolkit.sync), that *should* do
>> the same (even if it obviously doesn't).
>
> Why do you think they should do the same?
>
>>
>> Anyway, I hope this version is good enough for you to go in.
>
> Now the test looks without functionality problems but there are some code
> style mistakes and unnecessary code. E.g. duplicate code in the main method,
> class field passing as method parameters (the getPopup method) etc.
>
> To avoid time spending I modified your test a little bit (see attach) and
> approve the fix.
>
> Regards, Pavel
>
>> Please, let me know what you think,
>> Mario
>>
>> 2012/5/4 Pavel Porvatov<pavel.porvatov at oracle.com>:
>>>
>>> Hi Mario,
>>>
>>>> 2012/4/21 Pavel Porvatov<pavel.porvatov at oracle.com>:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Pavel,
>>>>
>>>>> About the test:
>>>>> 1. Now is 2012 :)
>>>>
>>>> Ops...
>>>>
>>>>> 2. You must access to Swing components only from the EDT (see
>>>>> clickOnComponent(final Component comp) and other methods)
>>>>
>>>> Not sure if I understand correctly, all the access is done in the EDT
>>>> already, unless I became very blind!
>>>>
>>>> The tests are run from the EDT, only exception is checkPopup, which
>>>> just read a value after the execution, and I think this should be
>>>> safe.
>>>
>>> Yes, I missed the fact that the clickOnComponent method invoked on EDT.
>>> That's because you used robot.delay(50) in the method. There is no sense
>>> to
>>> use sleep methods on the EDT therad: you just freeze any event
>>> handling....
>>>
>>>>> b.
>>>>> loop
>>>>>        final Map<String, Boolean>    tests = new HashMap<>();
>>>>>        tests.put("javax.swing.PopupFactory$HeavyWeightPopup", false);
>>>>>        tests.put("javax.swing.PopupFactory$LightWeightPopup", true);
>>>>>
>>>>>        for (final String test : tests.keySet()) {
>>>>> can be replaced by two simple invocations
>>>>
>>>> Actually, this means duplicate more code or introduce another method,
>>>> not sure if this makes the code cleaner, but I can do it if you prefer
>>>> so.
>>>>
>>>>> c. NoSuchFieldException, SecurityException, IllegalArgumentException,
>>>>> IllegalAccessException can be replaced by Exception
>>>>> d.
>>>>> robot.delay(50);
>>>>> robot.mousePress(InputEvent.BUTTON1_MASK);
>>>>> robot.delay(50);
>>>>> Just use Robot#setAutoDelay
>>>>>
>>>>> etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> 5. latch must be volitile. After test rewriting I think this variable
>>>>> can
>>>>> be
>>>>> removed at all
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that tests should be readable and simplest as far as possible
>>>>
>>>> The reason why the test is so complex is that I wanted to throw the
>>>> exact exception and don't mix the reflection related stuff with the
>>>> real test exception, that also basically means I don't want to save
>>>> the exception and rethrow it later on (I've seen this in some other
>>>> tests), I rather prefer to make this obvious and not hidden, but of
>>>> course the code gets longer, and everything is complicated by the EDT
>>>> invocations.
>>>
>>> In your case reflection exception is also test failing.
>>>
>>>> Also, I'm not particularly happy with the use of reflection to access
>>>> the filed and check the class name, since we're testing against an
>>>> implementation detail, but I don't know how else I should test that we
>>>> create an heavy weight window (which is really also just an
>>>> implementation detail that leaked through the code up to the user,
>>>> nobody should ever care about heavy weight and lightweight imho), so
>>>> if you have a smarter idea, I would be happy to change the code.
>>>
>>> I'm also trying to avoid reflection in tests but I don't see another
>>> solution here
>>>
>>>> I will try to refactor the code but I would like to not invest
>>>> significant time in that, I'll send you a revised patch later
>>>> (hopefully!)
>>>
>>> Yes, and that's the reason to write first version of test without any
>>> errors. The test shouldn't have errors, because if it fails (on some
>>> platforms with very specific configuration) we have to fix it (therefore
>>> we
>>> are trying to keep all tests as clear and short as possible)...
>>>
>>> Your test is still have problems. E.g. setVisible invocation doesn't
>>> guarantee that right after method Frame becomes visible (platforms
>>> dependent
>>> behaviour). You can take a look at good test examples in repository, e.g.
>>> here
>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/awt/jdk/rev/dfa2ea47257d
>>>
>>> Regards, Pavel
>>>
>>
>>
>



-- 
pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF
Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA  FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF

IcedRobot: www.icedrobot.org
Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/
Read About us at: http://planet.classpath.org
OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/

Please, support open standards:
http://endsoftpatents.org/