Re: 4.2 modeler change

Hi Emerson,

The reason I started playing around with JavaFX instead of Electron is
because I could re-use some of the Cayenne JARs.  An advantage of Electron,
though, is I feel it has more momentum than JavaFX, but you'd have to
duplicate data structures and end up with a more complex client/server
architecture.  Both approaches would produce a cross-platform "native"
solution for the 3 major OSes, which is a win.


On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 11:01 AM Emerson Castañeda <[email protected]> wrote:

> @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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
> > 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 <[email protected]>
> 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 <
> > [email protected]>
> > > >> 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 <[email protected]>
> > > >> 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 <
> > > [email protected]
> > > >>>>> 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 <
> > > >>> [email protected]>
> > > >>>>>> 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 <
> > [email protected]
> > > >
> > > >>>>>>> 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:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
>