harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Anton Avtamonov" <anton.avtamo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [testing] Re: AWT, Java2D and SWING contribution
Date Fri, 02 Jun 2006 12:28:04 GMT
On 6/2/06, Erik Axel Nielsen <erikaxel@stud.ntnu.no> wrote:
> >
> > Actually my English is not good :-). Will work on improvement.
> >
> > What I tried to say is that we really don't need to use third-party
> > L&Fs for visual testing. It doesn't mean we should not try them. We
> > should! Just because L&F implementation is one of the most significant
> > customization in Swing and may be based on the very internal things
> > (like the order of components in some specific container, etc). So,
> > running third-party applications which provide their own L&Fs will
> > allow to determine many inconsistencies. Obviously, the more
> > applications we  probe during testing the better fucntional coverage
> > we achieve (and the more problems get identified).
> >
> > Talking about scenario automation: if I got your idea right, you
> > proposed to use some third-party L&F. Just because this approach would
> > allow unified look for both RI and Harmony.
> > This is excellent idea, but third-party L&F could also provide not
> > just own colors, but customized behavior as well, replacing our
> > classes. That's why I think we should not used them.
> > Your idea can be easily implemented by overriding color-related
> > constants in L&F.
> > What we need is just call:
> > UIManager.put("someColorConstant", new ColorUIResource
> > (PREDEFINED_COLOR))
> > for all the color-related constants.
> > This allows to test the standard set of L&F classes.
>
> Thanks a lot clearing this up for me Anton. I agree with most of your
> views. However I think that using third party L&F in our testing
> could help us isolate problems that are not in our own L&Fs but
> rather in our implementation of the other parts of Swing/Awt/Java2D.
> But as you say, we will have to find a L&F that overrides most if not
> all of BasicLF and that could be a bigger problem than I though
> originally.

Yes, agree.
If we want to test the underlying fucntionality completely isolated
L&F would be nice. For instance, the fact that button changes its
state to pressed/released is UI responsibility, however the fact that
listeners are notified is the reposnsibility of ButtonModel. And the
fact that mouse events are propoerly delivered is responsibility of
event queue and dispatching machinery. So, replacing UI part we can
test all event-processing layer for instance.

Anyway I'll try third-party L&Fs you are pointed out just to look how
it works with Harmony.

-- 
Anton Avtamonov,
Intel Middleware Products Division

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message