8315584 : java/awt/print/Dialog/DialogType.java fails with option not supported: yesno #15554
Conversation
… supported: yesno
|
👋 Welcome back lawrence-andrew! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into |
|
@lawrence-andrew The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:
When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing list. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command. |
Webrevs
|
| The test passes as long as no exceptions are thrown, *AND*, | ||
| if running on Windows only, the first dialog is a native windows | ||
| control which differs in appearance from the second dialog. | ||
| Note: You can either press 'ESCAPE' button or click on the 'Cancel' | ||
| to close print dialog. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Basically, the only thing that's required from the user is to close the dialogs shown by pressing Esc or clicking Cancel?
Once they're dismissed, the test could finish automatically. If it's the case, it's better to explain it in the instructions.
If an exception is thrown, the test will finish automatically.
It looks such a scenario is not covered by PassFailJFrame well: the instructions need to be shown for a short while before the test starts. After the user reads the instructions, the user clicks Start button. Then the instructions can be hidden or left on the screen (it depends on how long and complex the instructions are), and the test continues with its execution.
As soon as the test logic finishes, the test dismisses the instructions if they're still visible, and exits.
I know about at least three cases where a reduced functionality is required.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are you saying this test would be better with an enhancement to PassFailJFrame ?
But it is OK right, just more clunky than it could be .. ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are you saying this test would be better with an enhancement to PassFailJFrame ?
@prrace Yes. Or perhaps, with a reduced set implemented as another class.
But it is OK right, just more clunky than it could be .. ?
Yes, it is OK. Yet I'd like to get more details from Lawrence @lawrence-andrew, and I think the instructions could spell out the required steps better.
I know about at least three cases where a reduced functionality is required.
I remember Harshitha @honkar-jdk needs a similar functionality in #14744, specifically here and here. The instructions are shown to the user. Once they read the instructions and click Start, the test runs automatically; in Harshitha's case the user is expected to be moving mouse while the test is running.
The second test is for #14898. Renjith @Renjithkannath is working on it. In his case, the test is semi-automatic, the only thing required from the user is to lock screen and unlock it.
I can't remember what was the third test I had in mind.
| Two dialogs are shown in succession. | ||
| The test passes as long as no exceptions are thrown, *AND*, | ||
| if running on Windows only, the first dialog is a native windows | ||
| control which differs in appearance from the second dialog. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The above comment is out of date. It is from before we had macOS which also has a native dialog.
Please update it.
| The test passes as long as no exceptions are thrown, *AND*, | ||
| if running on Windows only, the first dialog is a native windows | ||
| control which differs in appearance from the second dialog. | ||
| Note: You can either press 'ESCAPE' button or click on the 'Cancel' | ||
| to close print dialog. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are you saying this test would be better with an enhancement to PassFailJFrame ?
But it is OK right, just more clunky than it could be .. ?
|
@lawrence-andrew This pull request has been inactive for more than 4 weeks and will be automatically closed if another 4 weeks passes without any activity. To avoid this, simply add a new comment to the pull request. Feel free to ask for assistance if you need help with progressing this pull request towards integration! |
|
@lawrence-andrew This pull request has been inactive for more than 8 weeks and will now be automatically closed. If you would like to continue working on this pull request in the future, feel free to reopen it! This can be done using the |
Test was failing with "test result: Error. Parse Exception: Arguments to `manual' option not supported: yesno"
Following are fixed
Progress
Issue
Reviewers
Reviewing
Using
gitCheckout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/15554/head:pull/15554$ git checkout pull/15554Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/15554$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/15554/headUsing Skara CLI tools
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 15554View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 15554Using diff file
Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15554.diff
Webrev
Link to Webrev Comment