On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 00:20:09 GMT, Andy Goryachev <ango...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Thanks for the clarification. Now I got the point what you are saying about. >> Added a new test case to cover this scenario. Used x, y.. naming to make a >> clear separation from previous scenarios. >> >> However do you still prefer to keep the lookupPseudoTest2() scenarios? This >> is almost similar to quickTest() and lookupAllTest() except that all the >> nodes used in this method have pseudo classes set. > > we could keep it - the more the merrier. > > ideally, we could use a more thorough approach: let's say, use two or three > layers, and create as many nodes as there are combinations, to test every > combination of the selector and search result. > > but the main result we got is that there should be no regression w.r.t. the > old implementation (I think). > two more people should definitely take a look at this PR still. Ok. Thank you :) ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1245#discussion_r1366274960
