On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 21:42:08 GMT, Kevin Rushforth <k...@openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Andy Goryachev has updated the pull request incrementally with one 
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>> 
>>   unused imports
>
> tests/system/src/test/java/test/javafx/scene/Snapshot1Test.java line 139:
> 
>> 137:             // Should throw IllegalStateException
>> 138:             tmpScene.snapshot(p -> {
>> 139:                 throw new RuntimeException("Should never get here");
> 
> Suggestion: Use `fail`, rather than changing the Error into a 
> RuntimeException.

won't compile with `fail()`.  any exception should be fine.

> tests/system/src/test/java/test/javafx/scene/Snapshot1Test.java line 169:
> 
>> 167:             // Should throw IllegalStateException
>> 168:             tmpNode.snapshot(p -> {
>> 169:                 throw new RuntimeException("Should never get here");
> 
> Use `fail` instead?

won't compile.

> tests/system/src/test/java/test/javafx/scene/Snapshot1Test.java line 265:
> 
>> 263:                 // Should not get here
>> 264:                 latch.countDown();
>> 265:                 throw new RuntimeException("Should never get here");
> 
> Use `fail` instead?

won't compile here either

> tests/system/src/test/java/test/javafx/scene/Snapshot1Test.java line 387:
> 
>> 385:                 // Should not get here
>> 386:                 latch.countDown();
>> 387:                 throw new RuntimeException("Should never get here");
> 
> Use `fail` instead?

ditto

> tests/system/src/test/java/test/javafx/scene/Snapshot2Test.java line 182:
> 
>> 180:     public void testSnapshotEmptyNodeImmNoParams(boolean live, boolean 
>> useImage) {
>> 181:         setupEach(live, useImage);
>> 182:         doTestSnapshotEmptyNodeDefer(live, useImage, null);
> 
> Question about the pattern: did you consider having the setupEach method 
> store the params in instance variables (the ones you removed)? Then you 
> wouldn't have needed to change any of the other methods to pass them to those 
> methods.
> 
> Just a thought that occurred to me as I was looking at this. What you have is 
> fine.

yeah, I realized the same thing, a bit too late.
some of the later tests do use the instance variables.
thank you for suggestion though!
cc: @lukostyra

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1569#discussion_r1767614057
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1569#discussion_r1767616578
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1569#discussion_r1767617021
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1569#discussion_r1767617531
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1569#discussion_r1767618872

Reply via email to