StubToolkit must go!

Pavel Safrata pavel.safrata at
Mon Feb 4 01:29:11 PST 2013

Hi Richard,
I strongly object. I've had this discussion with Kevin a year ago, 
quoting myself from the old discussion:

Scenegraph unit tests are there to test scenegraph. I believe that unit 
tests should by their definition test single units isolated from the 
rest of the system, not the system as a whole - for this we should have 
functional tests developed by QA. Our tests make sure that scenegraph 
works correctly given that the underlying platform behaves as expected. 
Including live toolkit/glass in running the tests would IMHO seriously 
damage purpose of those tests - they wouldn't give any reliable evidence 
of scenegraph's stability any more. Other important thing is that the 
code doesn't change over time (so it tests regressions in scenegraph) 
and also the test can make it behave in more different ways (and test 
scenegraph robustness).


On 2.2.2013 1:11, Richard Bair wrote:
> Well, at least that is what I'm hoping to do. The problem is that we have a bunch of unit tests. 20K+. Some of them rely on StubToolkit, some of them rely on the real deal. In the "source cleanup" operation I'm on, when we combine all the "graphics" tests together, we have a problem where these two different types of tests are together and one set will fail to execute depending on whether we launch with the real toolkit or the stub toolkit.
> My plan is to yank out StubToolkit and update all the tests that relied on it to instead work with the real toolkit (quantum and prism). I suspect this is going to be painful.
> Richard

More information about the openjfx-dev mailing list