What
jmsfx-creator has no tests at all - no src/test, and no test dependencies in its pom. #63 was a real bug in it that went unnoticed, and the only way to confirm the fix was a throwaway probe calling the private method by reflection. That should be a test.
Why it is worth doing
The logic worth covering is not the UI. It is the plain bookkeeping the creator does around it, which is where #63 lived:
None of that needs a stage or a visible window. jmsfx-core already runs JavaFX-touching tests in the build (IdentificationSymbolIconTest), so the toolkit starts fine under surefire; the same approach would work here.
What it needs
Not urgent
Nothing here blocks a release, and #63 is fixed and verified without it. Raising it so the gap is recorded rather than rediscovered next time something in the creator misbehaves.
What
jmsfx-creatorhas no tests at all - nosrc/test, and no test dependencies in its pom. #63 was a real bug in it that went unnoticed, and the only way to confirm the fix was a throwaway probe calling the private method by reflection. That should be a test.Why it is worth doing
The logic worth covering is not the UI. It is the plain bookkeeping the creator does around it, which is where #63 lived:
defaultSvgFileName, which derives a filename from the symbolNone of that needs a stage or a visible window.
jmsfx-corealready runs JavaFX-touching tests in the build (IdentificationSymbolIconTest), so the toolkit starts fine under surefire; the same approach would work here.What it needs
dependencyManagemententry and the junit-jupiter and hamcrest test dependencies, asjmsfx-core's pom has themsrc/test/javaNot urgent
Nothing here blocks a release, and #63 is fixed and verified without it. Raising it so the gap is recorded rather than rediscovered next time something in the creator misbehaves.