@Ari, Completely agree with you, and since we're still on Swing's parallel reality :) I will be working on that PR and any UI testing in general for the modeler. For some reason, that I don't know yet, my builds are failing in a totally different module (cayenne-rop-server).
@Michael I don't have any experience with Electron, but any approach for a web-modeler will be interesting to discuss. @John maybe we can start introducing that MVC pattern in order to uncouple the modeler's layers. Actually that is one of the keys factors for a testable app. @Lon do you have a specific JIRA ticket(s) were you are following the new bugs? Thanks EmeCas On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 7:42 AM Michael Gentry <blackn...@gmail.com> wrote: > I started a JavaFX prototype, but got bogged down (with other things) and > haven't picked it back up again. Kind of hoping to do that again within > the coming year... > > As to Ari's HTML/JS/CSS comment, if we went that route, it would likely be > an Electron-based application, I think, with HTML/JS/CSS for the UI and a > Java backend. > > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 7:34 PM Aristedes Maniatis <a...@maniatis.org> > wrote: > > > JavaFX would be a huge amount of work since almost the entire app would > > be rewritten from scratch. And if there was a reason to do it, that > > reason would probably point toward an html/js front end. There are just > > so many more html/js widgets for object graphs, table views, etc than > > any other UI kit. > > > > And then we'd have Cayenne modeler SaaS! \s > > > > Back in reality, Swing is going to be here a long time. If you are able > > to submit a PR to run even a basic set of tests on the UI that would be > > great and provide a guide on how to add more over time. > > > > > > Ari > > > > On 2/10/19 5:36am, Emerson Castañeda wrote: > > > Last year a got some progresses testing Swing UI using > > assertj-swing-junit > > > dependency > > > > > > Also, I got to run TravisCI successfully, by including xvfb In order > to > > > run the tests that require a GUI. > > > > > > Finally, it required 2 additional changes: > > > > > > 1. Modifying Main class on modeler to expose Injector object > > > 2. Include some modifications to the CayenneModelerFrame to set names > for > > > the GUI components to test, since assertj cannot test anonymous > > instances. > > > > > > If Swing still being an option, I can open a PR with a full functional > > use > > > case of GUI testing using the mentioned stack.. > > > > > > Other way, what would be the desires/goals for diving into JavaFX? so > we > > > could think about at GUI testing strategy covering that path. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > EmeCas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 2:51 PM John Huss <johnth...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> The way to handle testing for the UI is to write the app in an MVP > > style, > > >> sort of like this: > > >> > > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/11367250/concrete-code-example-of-mvp > > >> > > >> The gist is to define an interface contract for the view so that you > can > > >> replace the actual Swing UI View with a mock while testing. > > >> But that doesn't help much with an existing application that wasn't > > written > > >> in that style. > > >> > > >> > > >> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 1:00 AM Andrus Adamchik < > and...@objectstyle.org> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Yeah, I was thinking how do we even approach testing of Java UI. Any > > >>> suggestions are welcome. > > >>> > > >>> And to complicate things we've been postponing a dive into JavaFX, > > while > > >>> the Swing app keeps adding functionality. So investing effort in a > test > > >>> framework should take this pending decision into account. > > >>> > > >>> Andrus > > >>> > > >>>> On Oct 1, 2019, at 7:11 AM, Aristedes Maniatis <a...@maniatis.org> > > >> wrote: > > >>>> I've been down that path before, trying to test Swing and JavaFX. > Its > > >>> not easy to do. The best tool I found (and that was about 8 years > ago) > > >> was > > >>> > https://www.froglogic.com/squish/editions/automated-java-gui-testing/ > > >> but > > >>> I don't know if they have any licensing available for open source > > >> projects. > > >>>> Emerson, if you have any experience with this, let us know what has > > >>> worked for you. > > >>>> > > >>>> Ari > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On 30/9/19 12:21am, Emerson Castañeda wrote: > > >>>>> Wonder if these bugs would be into the kind of things that a good > GUI > > >>> test > > >>>>> suite for the modeler could prevent. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> EmeCas > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 12:08 PM Lon Varscsak < > > lon.varsc...@gmail.com > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Okay, cool. Another bug (I just found) is on the add relationship > > >>> dialog > > >>>>>> (on object entity) is that it seems to ignore the "delete" rule > and > > >>> just is > > >>>>>> always the default. Easily worked around by just editing the > added > > >>>>>> relationship after the fact. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 12:22 AM Andrus Adamchik < > > >>> and...@objectstyle.org> > > >>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Screenshots are stripped by the list management software, but the > > >>>>>>> description is pretty clear. I am not using 4.2 myself, but we do > > >>> need to > > >>>>>>> fix it before we release 4.2.M1. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Andrus > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Sep 26, 2019, at 1:08 AM, Lon Varscsak < > lon.varsc...@gmail.com > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> Hey all, > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> It looks like when adding a db-relationship in the Modeler > > >>>>>>> (4.2.M1-SNAPSHOT from today) the potential target entities is not > > >>> sorted > > >>>>>>> (which is only mildly annoying), but doesn't contain any target > > >>> entities > > >>>>>>> outside of the current data map (blocker). Am i missing > something? > > >>>>>>>> Thanks! > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> -Lon > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Here's a screenshot for reference: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>> > > >
