cayenne-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aristedes Maniatis <...@maniatis.org>
Subject Re: 4.2 modeler change
Date Tue, 01 Oct 2019 23:34:13 GMT
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 <johnthuss@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 <andrus@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 <ari@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.varscsak@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 <
>>> andrus@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.varscsak@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:
>>>>>>>>
>>>

Mime
View raw message