On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 23:26:46 GMT, Andy Goryachev <ango...@openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Martin Fox has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional 
>> commit since the last revision:
>> 
>>   The last deprecated declaration has been removed from GlassView3D.m
>
> tests/system/src/test/java/test/robot/javafx/scene/SRGBTest.java line 52:
> 
>> 50: 
>> 51: import org.junit.Test;
>> 52: import static org.junit.Assume.assumeTrue;
> 
> should we use junit5 for the new tests?

This test is based on the VisualTestBase test harness class which is written 
using junit4. I use that test harness since it contains waitFirstFrame and 
waitNextFrame as well as existing utility routines for reporting on color 
mismatches.

> tests/system/src/test/java/test/robot/javafx/scene/SRGBTest.java line 68:
> 
>> 66:     // The component tolerance allows one bit of rounding when writing a 
>> color
>> 67:     // out and another bit when reading it back in.
>> 68:     static final double COMPONENT_TOLERANCE = 2.0 / 255.0;
> 
> suggestion: 2.0001 / 255.0 to account for floating point errors

I'm not sure this test needs to be that precise. And I'm fine with the 
threshold falling below 2.0/255.0 since it should be as small as possible (I 
even experimented briefly with lower numbers). I haven't run into an issue on 
the three platforms I've run this test on.

> tests/system/src/test/java/test/robot/javafx/scene/SRGBTest.java line 99:
> 
>> 97: 
>> 98:     // We use an AWT Robot since it is color space aware and will 
>> correctly convert
>> 99:     // from the screeen's color space to sRGB.
> 
> do we plan to fix FX robot eventually?

This PR fixes the JavaFX Robot. I give a more detailed explanation of why I'm 
using the AWT Robot in a comment just before the sRGBPixelTest. I've updated 
the comments.

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1473#discussion_r1697713199
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1473#discussion_r1697713019
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1473#discussion_r1697712939

Reply via email to